Vol. 48, No. 137 4/ Friday, July 15, 1983 Rules and ... · Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 /...

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 4/ Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 413 and 433

[OW-FRL-2383-71

Electroplating and Metal FinishingPoint Source Categories; EffluentLimitations Guidelines, PretreatmentStandards, and New SourcePerformance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This" regulation limits thepollutants that electroplating/metalfinishing facilities may discharge towaters of the United States or topublicly owned treatment works(POTW). The Metal FinishingRegulations provide effluent limitationsbased on "best practicable technology"and "best available technology" andestablish new source performancestandards and pretreatment standardsunder the Clean Water Act. In addition,this rule amends the pretreatmentstandards for existing sources for theElectroplating Point Source Category.

The preamble summarizes the legalauthority, background, technical andeconomic bases,, and other aspects ofthe regulation as well as a summary ofcomments on the proposed regulationand on the record supporting theproposed regulation. The abbreviations,acronyms, and other terms used in thepreamble are defined in Appendix A.(See "Supplementary Information"below for complete table of contents).

The final rule is supported by EPA'stechnical conclusions detailed in theDevelopment Document for EffluentLimitations Guidelines, and Standardsfor the Metal Finishing Point SourceCategory, June, 1983. The Agency'seconomic analysis is found in EconomicAnalysis of Effluent Standards andLimitations for the Metal FinishingIndustry, June 1983. Further supportingmaterials are filed in the recordsupporting this rulemaking.DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR100.01 (45 FR 26048) this regulation shallbe considered issued for the purposes ofjudical 'eview at 1:00 p.m. Eastern timeon July 29, 1983. These regulations shallbecome effective August 29, 1983.

The compliance date for the BATregulations is'as soon as possible, but nolater than July 1, 1984.

The compliance date for New Source,Performance Standards (NSPS) andPretreatment Standards for NewSources (PSNS) is the date the newsource begins operations. The

compliance date for Metal FinishingPretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES) is February 15, 1986 formetals and cyanide. Metal FinishingPSES establishes two levels of toxicorganic control; thi less stringent mustbe met by June 30, 1984 for most plantsand by July 10, 1985 at plants alsosubject to Part 420 (Iron and Steel); themore stringent must be met by February15, 1986. In addition, Electroplating PSESrequires toxic organic control by July 15,1986.

Under Section 509(b)(1) of the CleanWater Act judicial review of thisregulation can be obtained only by filinga petition for review in the United StatesCourt of Appeals within 90 days afterthese regulations are considered issuedfor the purposes of judicial review-Under Section 509(b)(2) of the CleanWater Act, the requirements of theregulations may not be challenged inlater civil or criminal proceedingsbrought by EPA. to enforce theserequirements.

Reporting provisions in 40 CFR 413.03and 433.12 will be reviewed by 0MBunder the paperwork reduction act andare not effective until approved.ADDRESS: Technical information may beobtained by writing to Mr. RichardKinch, Effluent Guidelines Division(WH-552), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,D.C. 20460, Attention: Metal FinishingRules. Approximately two weeks from-publication, the record for thisrulemaking will be available forinspection and copying at the EPAPublic Information Reference Unit,Room 2404 (Rear) PM-213 (EPA Library).The EPA public information regulation(40 CFR Part 2) provides that areasonable fee may be charged forcopying. Copies of the technical andeconomic documents may be obtained-from the National Technical InformationService, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703/487-4650). Copies of both documents •will be available for review in the publicrecord at EPA headquarters andregional libraries.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Richard Kinch, Effluent GuidelinesDivision (WH-552), EPA, 401.M Street,S.W., Washington, D C. 20460, or bycalling (202) 382-7159. Economicinformation may be obtained by writingMs. Kathleen Ehrensberger, EconomicsBranch (WH-586), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M St. S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling(202) 382-5397.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This Notice

I. Legal AuthorityII. Background

A. The Clean Water ActB. Prior EPA RegulationsC. Overview of the Industry

Ill. Scope of this RulemakingIV. Data Gathering EffortsV. Sampling and Analytical ProgramVI. Industry SubcategorizationVII. Available Wastdwater Control and

Treatment TechnologyA. Status of In-Place TechnologyB. Control Treatment Options

VIII. General Criteria for LimitationsA. BPT Effluent LimitationsB. BAT Effluent LimitationsC. BCT Effluent LimitationsC. BCT Effluent LimitationsD. New Source Performance StandardsE. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

SourcesF. Rretreatment Standards for New Sources

IX. Summary of Final RegulationsA. Part 433B. Part 413

X. Derivation of the LimitationsXI Changes from the Proposed LimitsXII. Pollutants and Subcategories Not

-RegulatedA. Exclusion of Toxic PollutantsB. Exclusion of Subcategories

XIII. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits, andEconomic Impacts

A. Costs and Economic ImpactsB. Executive Order 12291C. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisD. SBA Loans

XIV. Non-Water-Quality Environmental. ImpactsA. Air PollutionB. NoiseC. RadiationD. Solid WasteE. Energy

XV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)XVI. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXVII. Variances and ModificationsXVIII. Implementation of Limitations and

StandardsA. Relation to NPDES PermitsB. Indirect DischargersC. Applicability and Compliance DatesD. Enforcement

XIX. Summary of Public Participation?.(X. Availability of Technical InformationXXI. OMB ReviewXXII. List of SubjectsXXIII. Appendices

A. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and OtherTerms Used in This Notice

B. Pollutants Excluded From RegulationC. Unit Operations in the Metal Finishing

Industry

I. Legal AuthorityThis regulation is being promulgated

under the authority of Sections 301, 304,306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean WaterAct (the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251et seq., as amended by the Clean WaterAct of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217) (the "Act")and as further amended. This regulationis also being promulgated in response tothe Settlement Agreement in NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc.. v.

32462

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), asmodified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),modified by Order dated October 26,1982.

II. Background

A. The Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established a.comprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters," Section 101(a).

* Section 301(b)(1)(A) set a deadlineof July 1, 1977, for existing industrialdirect dischargers to achieve "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available" ("BPT").

0 Section 301(b)(2)(A) set a deadlineof July 1, 1983, for those dischargers toachieve "effluent limitations requiringthe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable ...which will result in reasonable furtherprogress toward the national goal ofeliminating the discharge of allpollutants" ("BAT").

* Section 306 required that newindustrial direct dischargers complywith new source performance standards("NSPS"), based on best availabledemonstrated technology.

& Sections 307 (b) and (c) requiredpretreatment standards for new andexisting dischargers to publicly ownedtreatment works ("POTW"). The Actmade pretreatment standardsenforceable directly against dischargersto POTW's (indirect dischargers), unlikethe requirements for direct dischargerswhich were to be incorporated intoNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permitsissued under Section 402.

* Section 402(a)(1) allowsrequirements for direct dischargers to beset case-by-case. However, Congressintended control requirements to bebased for the most part on regulationspromulgated by the Administrator ofEPA.

* Section 304(b) required regulationsthat establish effluent limitationsreflecting the ability of BPT and BAT toreduce effluent discharge.

* Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Actrequired regulations for NSPS.

9 Sections 304(g), 307(b), and 307(c)required regulations for pretreatmentstandards.

* In addition to these regulations fordesignated industry categories, Section307(a) required the Administrator topromulgate effluent standardsapplicable to all dischargers of toxicpollutants.

* Section 308 gave the Administratorauthority to collect informationnecessary to develop and enforceregulations.

0 Finally, Section 501(a) authorizedthe Administrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act.

EPA was unable to promulgate manyof these regulations by the deadlinescontained in the Act, and as a result--in1976, EPA was sued by severalenvironmental groups. In settling thislawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executeda "Settlement Agreement" which wasapproved by the Court. This agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andmeet a schedule for controlling 65"priority" pollutants and classes ofpollutants. In carrying out this programEPA must promulgate BAT effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards for.21 major industries. SeeNatural Resources Defense Council, Inc.v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),modified by Order dated October 26,1982.

Several of the basic elements of theSettlement Agreement program wereincorporated into the Clean Water Actof 1977. This law also makes severalother important changes in the Federalwater pollution control program.

* Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now set July 1,1984 as the deadline for industries toachieve effluent limitations requiringapplication of BAT for "toxic"pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants hereincludes the 65 "priority" pollutants andclasses of pollutants which Congressdeclared "toxic" under Section 307(a) ofthe Act.

* Likewise, EPA's programs for newsource performance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimedprincipally at controlling toxicpollutants.

* To strengthen the toxics controlprogram, Section 304(d) of the Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe certain "best managementpractices" ("BMPs"). These BMPs are toprevent the release of toxic andhazardous pollutants from: (1) Plant siterunoff, (2) spillage or leaks, (3) sludge orwaste disposal, and (4) drainage fromraw material storage if any of thoseevents are associated with, or ancillaryto, the manufacturing or treatmentprocess.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977also revises the control program for non-toxic pollutants.

- For "conventional" pollutantsidentified under Section 304(a)(4)

(including biochemical oxygen demand,suspended solids, fecal coliform andpH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(E)requires "effluent limitations requiringthe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology" ("BCT")-instead of BAT-to be achieved by July1, 1984. The factors considered'inassessing BCT for an industry are therelationship between the cost ofattaining a reduction in effluents and theeffluent reduction benefits attained, anda comparison of the cost and level ofreduction of such pollutants bypublically owned treatment works.andindustrial sources. For non-toxic,nonconventional pollutants, Sections301 (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) requireachievement of BAT effluent .limitationswithin three years after theirestablishment or by July 1, 1984,whichever is later, but not later thanJuly 1, 1987.

The purpose of this regulation is toestablish BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, andPSNS for the Part 433 Metal FinishingPoint Source Category, and to amendthe Part 413 Electroplating PSES.

B. Prior EPA Regulations

On March 28, 1974, EPA promulgatedBPT limitations for the electroplatingindustry but suspended them onDecember 3, 1976. Interim finalpretreatment standards for theelectroplating industry were issued onJuly 12, 1977, and suspended on May 14,1979. On September 7, 1979, EPApromulgated the Part 413 PSES for theelectroplating industry. Amended PSESwere promulgated on January 28, 1981(40 FR 9462).

Currently only those ElectroplatingPSES are in effect. Nonintegratedindirect discharging facilities mustcomply with those standards by April27, 1984. See 47 FR 42698, September 28,1982. A non-integrated facility is onewhich does not discharge significantprocess wastewater, other than fromelectroplating operations, through atreatment system (or proposedtreatment system).

Integrated indirect dischargingfacilities are also currently covered bythe electroplating PSES. These facilities,which prior to treatment combineelectroplating waste streams withsignificant process waste streams notcovered by the Electroplating Category,must comply with its provisions by June30, 1984 (see 48 FR 2774, January 21,1983).

C. Overview of the Industry

iThere are 13,500 plants in theelectroplating/metal finishing industry.Many discharge wastewaters from

32463

Federal Register./ Vol. 48, No. 137/ Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

several metal finishing operations otherthan, and in addition to, electroplating.Part 413 (electroplating) currentlyapplies only to flows from the sixspecified electroplating processes.These Part 433 (metal finishingregulations) will apply to thoseelectroplating streams and also towastestreams from most other metalfinishing operations within the sameplants. The Part 433 PSES will applyonly to plants already covered by Part413; however Part 433 will often coveradditional wastewater within the sameplants. Thus the Part 433 limits ondischarge of toxic metals, toxic organics,and cyanide will apply to most facilitiesin the electroplating/metal finishingindustry.

The industry can be divided into thesectors indicated on Table 1. Facilitiesare either"captives" [those which in acalendar -year own more than 50% (areabasis) of the materials undergoing metalfinishing]; or "job Shops" (those whichin a calendar year do-not own more than50% (area basis) of material undergoingmetal finishing) .

Captives can be further divided bytwo definitions: "integrated" plants arethose which, prior to treatment, combineelectroplating waste streams withsignificant process waste streams notcovered by the electroplating category;"non-integrated" facilities are thosewhich have significant wastewaterdischarges only from operationsaddressed by the electroplatingcategory. Many captives (50%) are"integrated" facilities. Whereas captivesoften have a conplex range ofoperations, job shops usually performfewer operations. In theory job shopscan be divided like captives; inactuality, however, approximately 97%of all job shops in this industry are"non-integrated".

Finally, the entire industry can bedivided ihto "direct" and "indirect"dischargers. "Directs" dischargewastewaters to waters of the UnitedStates and are subject to NPDES permitsincorporating BPT, BAT, and BCTlimitations or NSPS. "Indirects"discharge to POTWs and are subject toPSES or PSNS.

As discussed above, theelectroplating/metal finishing industry iscurrently covered by Part 413 PSES forthe Electroplating Category promulgatedon September 7, 1979, and amended onJanuary 28, 1981. The effect of today'samendments is to create a newcategory--:Metal Finishing (Part 433)-and to shift most electroplaters to it,replacing their current PSES with newlimits which apply uniformly todischarges from their electroplating andother metal finishing operations. This

meets industry's requests for equivalentlimits for process lines often foundtogether and greatly reduces the need torely on the Combined Waste StreamFormula for integrated metal finishingfacilities. Direct discharger and newsource requirements are also beingissued as part of the metal finishingregulations.

Indirect discharging job shopelectroplaters and indepefident printedcircuit board manufacturers, however,would be' left under the existing Part 413PSES for Electroplating and areexempted from Part 433. This isconsistent with a 1980 SettlementAgreement in which the NationalAssociation of Metal Finishers (NAMF),and the Institute for Interconnecting andPackaging Electronic Circuits (IIPEC)agreed not to challenge the Part 413PSES in return for the 1981 amendmentsand EPA's commitment that the Agencydid not intend to develop significantlymore stringent standards for thoseplants for the next several years.

TABLE I.-BREAKDOWN OF THEELECTROPLATING/METAL FINISHING INDUSTRY

[Number of plants per sector 13,470]

Job shops Captive facilities (10,000)and IPCBM N r

(3,470) Nonintegrat- Integrated

Indirect 3,061 job & 3,750 3,750discharg- IPCBM noninte- integratedera indirect. grated captive(10,561). captive.

Direct 409 job & (2) ............. I ).discharg- IPCBM,ers (2,909). directs.

Independent printed circuit board manufacturers.2,500 captive directs.

The Metal Finishing Category coversplants which perform one or more of thefollowing six operations: electroplating,electroless plating, anodizing, coating(phosphating, chromating, and coloring),chemical etching and milling, or printedcircuit board manufacture. If a plantperforms any of those six operationsthen discharges from the 46 operationlisted in Appendix C are covered bythese standards.

In some cases another industrialcategory may cover wastewaterdischarges from a metal finishingoperation. In such cases the morespecific standards of the other Part(s)will apply to those wastewater streamswhich appear to be covered by bothregulations. For example, if a plantperforms coating operations inpreparation for painting and alsoperforms electroless plating as part of aporcelain enameling process, then thesePart 433 standards would apply todischarges from the coating operation;while Part 466 (porcelain enameling)

would apply to discharges from thesecond operation.

The following regulations will takeprecedence over metal finishing (Part433) and electroplating (Part 413) whensuch an overlap occurs:Nonferrous metal smelting and refining

(40 CFR Part 421)Coil coating (40 CFR Part 465)Porcelain enameling (40 CFR Part 466)Battery manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)Iron and steel (40 CFR Part 420) Metal casting foundries (40 CFR Part

464)Aluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467)Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468)Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR

Part 463)In addition, EPA is excluding from the

metal finishing (Part 433) regulation: fl)Metallic platemaking and gravurecylinder preparation conducted withinprinting and publishing facilities; and (2)existing source job shops andindependent printed circuit boardmanufacturers which introducepollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works. As noted above, thestandards do not apply to facilitiesunless they perform at least one of thefollowing: electroplating, electrolessplating, anodizing, coating, chemicaletching and milling, or printed circuitboard manufacture.

The most important pollutants ofconcern found in metal finishingindustry wastewaters are: (1) toxicmetals (cadmium, copper, chromium,nickel, lead, and zinc); (2) cyanide; (3)toxic organics (lumped together as totaltoxic organics); and (4) conventionalpollutants (TSS and oil and grease).These and other chemical constituentsdegrade water quality, endanger aquaticlife and human health, and in additioncorrode equipment, generate hazardousgas, and cause treatment plantmalfunctions and problems in disposingof sludges containing toxic metals.

These plants manufacture a variety ofproducts that are constructed primarilyof metals. The operations, which involvemeterials that begin as raw stock (rods,bars, sheet, castings, forgings, etc.), caninclude the most sophisticated surfacefinishing technologies. These facilitiesinclude both captives and job shops.They vary greatly in size, age, number ofemployees, and number and type ofoperations performed. They range fromvery small job shops with less than 10employees to large facilities employingthousands of production workers.Because of differences in size andprocesses, production facilities arecustom tailored to the individual plant.Some complex products may require the

32464

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and-Regulations

use of nearly all of the 46 unit operationsmetioned above; a simple product mayrequire only one.

Many different raw materials are usedby these plants. Basis materials (or"workpieces") are mostly metals; fromcommon copper and steel to extremelyexpensive high-grade alloys andprecious metals. They can also includeplastics. Solutions used in unitoperations can contain acids, bases,cyanide, metals, complexing agents,organic additives, oils, and detergents.All these materials may enter wastestreams during production.

Water use within the metal finishingindustry is discussed fully in Section Vof the development document (seesummary above). Plating and cleaningoperations are typically the biggestwater users. While most metal finishingoperations use water, some may usenone at all. Water use depends heavilyon the type-and the flow rate-of therinsing used. Product qualityrequirements often dictate the amount ofrinsing needed for specific parts. Partsinvolving extensive surface preparationwill generally require larger amounts ofwater in rinsing.

IlL. Scope of this Rulemaking

This regulation establishes Part 433BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS forthe Metal Finishing Point SourceCategory and amends;Part 413 PSES forthe Electroplating Point SourceCategory. The BAT goal is to achieve, byJuly 1, 1984, the best availabletechnology economically achievablethat will result in reasonable furtherprogress toward the national goal ofeliminating the discharge of allpollutants. This regulation does not alterthe existing metal and cyanidestandards for job shop electroplatersand printed circuit board manufacturersdischarging to POTWs.

EPA first studied the electropliting/metal finishing industry to determinewhether differences in raw materials,final products, manufacturing processes,equipment, age and size of plants, wateruse, wastewater constituents, or otherfactors required separate effluentlimitations and standards for differentindustry subcategories. This studyinvolved a detailed analysis ofwastewater discharge and treatedeffluent characteristics, including, {a)the sources and volume of water, theprocesses, and the sources of pollutantsand wastewater in the plant and (b) theconstituents of wastewaters, includingtoxic pollutants. This analysis enabled

Ikthe Agency to determine the presenceand concentrations of toxic pollutantson the major wastewater discharges.

EPA also identified several distinctcontrol and treatment technologies (bothin-plant and end-of-pipe), includingthose with potential use in theelectroplating/metal finishing industry.The Agency analyzed both historicaland newly generated data on theperformance of these technologies,including their non-water qualityenvironmental impacts on air quality,solid waste generation, water scarcity,and energy requirements.

Cost curves were used to estimate thecost of each control and treatmenttechnology. These cost curves weredeveloped by applying standardengineering analyses to metal finishingwastewater characteristics. Unit processcosts were than derived by applyingmodel plant characteristics (productionand flow) to the unit cost curve of eachtreatment process. These unit processcosts were added together to yield thetotal cost at each treatment level.

By considering these factors, EPA wasable to characterize the various controland trealment technologies used as thebases for effluent limitations, newsource and pretreatment standardg.However, the regulations do not requireany particular technology. Rather, theyrequire plants to achieve effluentlimitations 1mg/I) which reflect theproper operation of these fechnologiesor equivalent technologies. Somefacilities are already successfully usingtechnologies other than those relied onby the Agency, such as dragout control,recycle, and recovery, to achieve thesevalues.

IV. Data Gathering Efforts

To develop the regulation, EPA beganwith a review of previous work on theelectroplating/metal finishing industry.The major source of information on thisis the Draft Development Document forEffluent Limitations and Standards forthe Metal Finishing Point SourceCategory (June 1980). Several studiescompleted before this developmentdocument was published alsocontributed technical information to themetal finishing data base for thefollowing segments of the industry:

* Machinery and MechanicalProducts Manufacturing.

* Electroplating." Electroless Plating and Printed

Circuit Board Manufacturing (Segmentsof the Electroplating Category).

- Mechanical and Electrical Products.We also gathered data on the metal

finishing industry from literaturesurveys, inquiries to professionalcontacts, seminars and meetings, andthe survey and evaluation ofmanufacturing facilities.

We contacted all Federal EPA regions,several State environmental agencies,and numerous suppliers andmanufacturers for the metal finishingindustry to collect information on: (1)Permits and monitoring data, (2) the useand properties of materials, (3) processchemical constituents, (4) wastetreatment equipment, (5) wastetransport, (6) and various processmodifications to minimize pollutantgeneration.

Under the authority of Section 308 ofthe Clean Water Act, the Agency sentthree different data collection portfolios(DCPs) to various industries within theMetal-Finishing Point Source Category.The first DCP obtained data from 339 of1,422 plants originally contacted fromthe machinery and mechanical productsindustry. The data included generalplant information on raw materialsconsumed, specific processes used,composition of effluent streams, andwastewater treatment. The second DCPobtained data from 365 of the 900 plantsoriginally contacted in the mechanicaland electrical products industries. Thesedata covered general plantcharacteristics, unit operationsperformed, plating type operations,wastewater treatment facilities, andwaste transport. We sent the third DCPto 1,883 companies involved inelectroplating. Approximately 1190plants sent back ecbnomic analysis dataand information on general plantcharacteristics, production history,manufacturing processes, process andwaste treatment, wastewatercharacteristics, and treatment costs.

EPA and its contractors also visited210 manufacturing facilities to collectwastewater samples and pertinenttechnical information on manufacturingprocesses and various treatmenttechniques.

V. Sampling and Analytical Program

EPA focused its sampling and analysison the toxic pollutants designated in theClean Water Act. However, we alsosampled and analyzed conventional andnonconventional pollutants. Prior toundertaking sampling programs insupport of rulemaking actions, EPA hadto identify specific toxic pollutants thatwould be appropriate subjects forinvestigation. The list of 65 pollutantsand classes of pollutants potentiallyincludes thousands of specificcompounds, the analyses of which co~ildoverwhelm private and governmentlaboratory resources. To make the task

-more manageable, therefore, EPAselected 129 specific toxic pollutants for.study in this rulemaking and otherindustry rulemakings. The criteria for

32465


choosing these pollutants included thefrequency of their occurrence in water,their chemical stability and structure,the amount of the chemical produced,and the availability of chemicalstandards for measurement.

In addition to the original 129 toxicpollutants (of which three are nowconsidered nonconventional pollutants.EPA checked for the presence,frequency, and concentration of xylenes,alkyl epoxides, gold, fluoride,phosphorus, oil and grease, TSS, pH,aluminum, barium, iridium, magnesium,molybdenum, osmium, palladium,platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, sodium,tin, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, andtotal phenols.

The criteria used to select plants forsampling visits were: (1) A largepercentage of the plant's effluentdischarge should result from themanufacturing processes listed inAppendix C; (2) the physical layout ofplant plumbing should facilitatesampling of the wastewater type understudy; (3) the plant must have wastetreatment in place; (4) the mix of plantsvisited should contain discharges toboth surface waters and publicalyowned treatment works; and (5) theselected plants should provide arepresentative geographical distributionto avoid a data base that concentrateson a unique geographical condition. EPAsampled 210 facilities to identifypollutants in plant wastewaters. Beforevisiting a plant, EPA reviewed allavailable data on manufacturingprocesses and waste treatment. Weselected representative points at whichto sample the raw wastewater enteringthe treatment systems and the finaltreated effluents. Finally we prepared,reviewed, and approved a detailedsampling plan showing the selectedsample points and the overall samplingprocedure.

Based on this sampling plan, we thentook samples at each sample point for 1,2 or 3 consecutive days. The sampleswere divided into two analytical groups.Within each group the samples weresubjected to various analyses,depending on the stability of thepollutants to be analyzed. The variouslevels of analysis were conducted at: (1)Local laboratories, (2) EPA's Chicagolaboratory, (3) contracted gas 'chromatography/mass spectrometry(GC/MS) laboratories, and (4) thesampling contractor's central laboratory.The sampling and analysis methods areoutlined in the Development Document.

The acquisition, preservation, andanalysis of the water samples followedthe relevant methods set forth in 40 CFR136. Although the Agency has notpromulgated analytical methods' for

many organic toxic pollutants underSection 304(h) of the Act, a number ofthese methods have beeri proposed for40 CFR 136 (44 FR 69464, December 3,1979; 44 FR 75028, December 18, 1979).

VI. Industry Subcategorization

In developing this regulation, theAgency considered whether differenteffluent limitations and standards areappropriate for different segments of themetal finishing industry. The Actrequires EPA to consider a number offactors to determine if subeategorizationis needed. These factors include rawmaterials, final products, manufacturingprocesses, geographical location, plantsize and age, wastewatercharacteristics, non-water-qualityenvironmental impacts, treatment costs,energy costs, and solid wastegeneration.

The metal finishing industrycomprises 45 unit operations. Theseprocesses generate wastewater that fallsinto five waste groups, each requiringdifferent treatment to reduce thedischarge of pollutants. The five groupsare metals, cyanide, hexavalentchromium, oils, and solvents, withsignificant toxic organics pollutantspotentially present in the last two.

These wastes occur in a wide varietyof combinations. Throughout theindustry, however the wastestreams arealike in one critical sense; they allrespond similarly to the treatmentsystem which is already most widelyused in the industry. That system wasselected as EPA's model technology. Itsmajor components, i.e., precipitation andclarification, are used for all wastestreams. After isolated treatment ofhexavalent chromium, cyanide, and oiland grease, pollutants in these wastestreams are further reduced by passagethrough the precipitation-clarificationsystem which is also used for metal-bearing wastes.

The Agency has determined that theMetal Finishing Point Source Categoryneed not be subcategorized forregulation. A set of concentration basedlimitations, based on the performancecapabilities of the model technology,can be applied to all metal finishingprocess effluents.

EPA has, however decided to exemptindirect discharging job shops andindependent printed circuit boardmanufacturers from the Part 433 PSES.This has an effect similar to placingthem in a separate subcategory. Asnoted above, this is consistent with the1980 Settlement Agreement in which theNational Association of Metal Finisherspromised to withdraw its legal challengeto those Part 413 PSES if EPA did not,

for the next several years, make themsignificantly more stringent.

The Agency considered, but decidedagainst production based standard.With the wide range of operations,produqt quality requirements, existingprocess configurations, and difficultiesin measuring production, no consistentproduction normalizing relationshipcould be found. Concentration basedlimits, however, can be consistentlyattained throughout the industry..

VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place Technology

Installed control and treatmenttechnologies in the metal finishingindustry generally consist of some formof alkaline precipitation andclarification installed at "end-of-pipe" toremove metals. When cyanide orhexavalent chromium wastes arepresent, these wastewaters aregenerally segregated and treatedupstream.

B. Control Treatment Options

We examined the following controltreatment options:

Option 1: Precipitation andcarification. Stream segregation forcyanide, hexavalent chromium andconcentrated oily wastes followed bycyanide destruction, chromiumreduction and emulsion breakingskimming as necessary. Solvent wastesegregation and removal by hauling.

Option 2: Option 1 plus filtration.Option 3: Option 1 plus in-plant

control for cadmium.

VIII. General Criteria for EffluentLimitations

A. BPT Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in definingbest practicable control technolgycurrently available (BPT) include: (1)The total cost of applying the technologyrelative to the effluent reductions thatresult, (2) the age of equipment andfacilities involved, (3) the processesused, (4) engineering aspects of thecontrol technology, (5) process changes,(6) non-water-quality environmentalimpacts (including energy requirements),(7) and other factors, as theAdministrator considers appropriate, Ingeneral, the BPT level represents theaverage of the best existingperformances of plants within theindustry of various ages, sizes,processes, or other commoncharacteristics. When existingperformance is uniformly inadequate,BPT may be transferred from a differentsubcategory or category. BPT focuses on

32466


end-of-pipe treatment rather thanprocess changes or internal controls-except when these technologies arecommon industry practice.

The cost/benefit inquiry for BPT is alimited balancing of costs versusbenefits, committed to EPA's discretion,which does not require the Agency toquantify benefits in monetary terms. Seee.g., American Iron and Steel Institute v.EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 [3rd Cir. 1975). Inbalancing costs against the benefits ofeffluent reduction, EPA considers thevolume and nature of existingdischarges, the volume and nature ofdischarges expected after application ofBPT, the general environmental effectsof the pollutants, and the cost andeconomic impacts of the required levelof pollution control. The Act does notrequire or permit consideration of waterquality problems attributable toparticular point sources, or waterquality improvements in particularbodies of water. Therefore, EPA has notconsidered these factors. SeeWeyerhaeuser Company v. Castle, 590F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

B. BAT Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in definingbest available technology economicallyachievable (BAT) include the age of theequipment and facilities involved, theprocesses used, engineering aspects ofthe control technology, process changes,non-water-quality environmentalimpacts (including energy requirements),and the costs of applying suchtechnology (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). TheBAT level represents the besteconomically achievable performance ofplants of various ages, sizes, processes,or other shared characteristics. As withBFfr, uniformly inadequate performancewithin a category or subcategory mayrequire transfer of BAT from a diffE rentsubcategory or category. Unlike BPT,however, BAT may include processchanges or internal controls, even whenthese technologies are not commonindustry practice.

The statutory assessment of BAT"considers" costs, but does not require abalancing of costs against effluentreduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.Castle, supra). In developing BAT,however, EPA has given substantialweight to the reasonableness of costs.The Agency has considered the volumeand nature of discharges, the volumeand nature of discharges expected afterapplication of BAT, the generalenvironmental effects of the pollutants,and the costs and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control levels.

Despite this expanded considerationof costs, the primary factor fordetermining BAT is the effluent

reduction capability of the controltechnology. The Clean Water Act of1977, establishes the achievement ofBAT as the principal national means ofcontrolling toxic water pollution fromdirect discharging plants.

C. BCT Effluent Limitations

The 1977 amendments added Section301(b)(2)(E) to the Act, establishing'best conventional pollutant controltechnology" (BCT) for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existingindustrial point sources. Section304{B)(4) specified the following asconventional pollutants: BOD, TSS, fecalcoliform, and pH. The Administratordesignated oil and grease as"conventional" on July 30, 1979, 44 FR44501.

BCT is not an additional limitation butreplaces BAT for the control ofconventional pollutants. In addition toother factors specified in section304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCTlimitations be assessed in light of a twopart "cost-reasonableness" test.American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first testcompares the cost for private industry toreduce its conventional pollutants withthe costs to publicly owned treatmentworks for similar levels of reduction intheir discharge of these pollutants. Thesecond test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrialtreatment beyond BPT. EPA must findthat limitations are "reasonable" underboth tests before establishing them asBCT. In no case may BCT be lessstringent than BPT.

EPA published its methodology forcarrying out the BCT analysis on August29, 1979, (44 FR .50732). In the casementioned above, the Court of Appealsordered EPA to correct data errorsunderlying EPA's calculation of the firsttest, and to apply the second cost test.(EPA had argued that a second cost testwas not required).BCT limitations for this industry were

proposed on October 29, 1982 (47 FR49176). They Were accompanied by aproposed methodology for the generaldevelopment of BCT limitations. BCTlimits for this industry will bepromulgated with, or soon after, thepromulgation of the final methodologyfor BCT development. At that time EPAwill respond to relevant comments filedin either that rulemaking or in this one.

D. New Source Performance Standards

The basis for new source performancestandards {NSPS) under Section 306 ofthe Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology. New plantshave the opportunity to design the bestand most efficient metal finishing

processes and wastewater treatmenttechnologies. Therefore, Congressdirected EPA to consider the bestdemonstrated process changes, in-plantcontrols, and end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies that reduce pollution to themaximum extent feasible.

E. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources

Section 3071b) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing sources (PSES), whichindustry must achieve within three yearsof promulgation. PSES are designed toprevent the discharge of pollutantswhich pass through, interfere with, orare otherwise incompatible with theoperation of POTW's.

The legislative history of the 1977 Actindicates that pretreatment standardsare to be technology-based, analogousto the best available technology forremoval of toxic pollutants. The GeneralPretreatment Regulations which serve asthe framework for the final metalfinishing pretreatment standards are in40 CFR Part 403, 46 FR 9404 (January 28,1981).

EPA has generally determined thatthere is pass through of pollutants if thepercent of pollutants removed by a well-operated POTW achieving secondarytreatment is less than the percentremoval by the BAT-model treatmentsystem. A study of 40 well-operatedPOTW's with biological treatment andmeeting secondary treatment criteriashowed that regulated metals aretypically removed at rates varying from20 to 70%. POTWs with only primarytreatment have leven lower rates ofremoval. In contrast, BAT leveltreatment by metal finishing industrialfacilities can achieve removals ofapproximately 97% or more. Thus it isevident that metals from this industry dopass through POTW's. As for toxicorganics, data from the same POTWsillustrate a wide range of removal, from0 to greater than 99%. Overall POTW'shave removal rates of toxic organicswhich are less effective than the metalfinishing TTO technology basis of nodumping of toxic organic wastes. ThePOTW's effluent discharge of specifictoxic pollutants ranged from 0 to 4.3milligrams/liter. Many of the pollutantspresent in metal finishing wastes, atsufficiently high concentrations, caninhibit biodegradation in POTWoperations. In addition, a highconcentration of toxic pollutants in thesludge can limit POTW use of sludgemanagement alternatives, including thebeneficial use of sludges on agriculturallands.

32467

Federal Register./ Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Section 307 of the Clean Water Actprovides that POTW's may grant creditto indirect dischargers, based on thedegree of removal actually achieved atthe POTW. EPA has GeneralPretreatment Regulations regulatingPOTWs' authority to grant such credits.

A Federal Register notice ofSeptember 28, 1982 explained EPA'slatest data and proposed nationalremoval credits for well operatedPOTW's achieving the nationalsecondary treatment limits. See 47 FR42698. That proposal is not being -reliedon in this rulemaking: however if suchcredits are available the costs of today'sstandards could be sustantially reduced.

F. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor new sources (PSNS) at the same timethat it promulgates NSPS. Thesestandards are intended to prevent thedischarge of pollutants which passthrough, interfere with, or are otherwiseincompatible with a POTW. Newindirect dischargers, like new directdischargers, have the opportunity toincorporate the best availabledemonstrated technologies-includingprocess changes. in-plant controls, andend-of-pipe treatment technologies--andto select plant sites that ensure thetreatment system can be adequatelyinstalled. Therefore, the Agency setsPSNS after considering the same criteriaconsidered for NSPS. PSNS will haveeffluent reduction benefits similar toNSPS.

IX. Summary of Final Regulations

In the electroplating/metal finishingindustry, the pollutants of concern arecadmium, chromium, copper, lead,nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, toxicorganics, TSS, oil and grease, and pH.The treatment option selected for eacheffluent limitation, pretreatmentstandard and new source performancestandard is based on the criteriaspecified in the Clean Water Act. Thetechnologies are discussgd in moredetail in the Development Document forthis rulemaking.

A. Part 433

The pollutants being regulated underBPT limitations are cadmiuri, copper,chromium, nickel, lead, silver', zinc, totalcyanide, TSS, oil and grease and pH.Total toxic organics (TTO) is also beingregulated. Compliance with the TTOlimit basically involves not dumpingconcentrated toxic organic wastes, e.g.,solvent degreasers and paint strippers.Other sources are generally small,infrequent, and of low concentrations.

For BPT, EPA is setting limitsachievable by technology based onprecipitation and clarification for allmetal finishing effluents. In addition, forcyanide or hexavalent chromium thetechnology basis incorporatestechniques to destroy cyanide andreduce hexavalent chromium to itstrivalent state. These effluent limitationsreflect the average of the best existingcontrol technologies widely used in theindustry and remove approximately 97.6percent of the raw waste of toxic metalsand cyanide, and 99 percent of the toxicorganics discharged. The technology isconsistent with that used as a basis forPSES for the electroplating industry(January 28, 1981, 40 FR 9462) and theMarch 28, 1974, suspended, BPTlimitations. The limitations are derivedin the manner discussed in the followingsection. They are generally morestringent than those found in currentlyeffective electroplating pretreatmentregulations, because EPA is now using arevised and updated data base.

For BAT, EPA is establishinglimitations for the toxic pollutants andat a level equivalent to BPT. The Agencyseriously considered setting BAT andBAT-level PSES limitations based onBPT level technology plus filtration.Filtration would have led to anadditional capital cost of almost $1.2billion. In light of the slatutory mandateto consider cost in setting BAT, EPAdecided to reject the filtration option,because of its very high aggregate coston a nationwide basis. We did not selectin-plant cadmium control because it canrequire significant re-engineering ofprocess water flow and of product andequipment handling, on a plant-by-plantbasis. The changes vary widely and inmany cases could be difficult forexisting plants to apply. The compliancedate for BAT is no later than July 1,1984, the maximum time allowed by theAct.

For NSPS, EPA is establishinglimitations based on BPT/BATtechnology plus in-plant control ofcadmium. This additional control takesadvantage of a new plant's ability toachieve effluent reductions of 69%beyond BAT cadmium levels. Thepollutants regulated under NSPS are thesame as those r'egulated under BPTlimitations.

For PSES in the Metal FinishingCategory, limitations are based ontechnology equivalent to BAT and BPT.The pollutants regulated under thisPSES are the same as the toxicpollutants regulated under BPT (BAT)limitations. A study of 40 well-operatedPOTWs with biological treatment andmeeting secondary treatment criteriashowed that regulated metals and

,cyanide are typically removed at ratesvarying from 20 to 70%. POTWs withprimary treatment have even lowerrates of removal. In contrast, metalfinishing PSES-level treatment canachieve removals of approximately 97%.Thus it is evident that metals andcyanide from this industry do passthrough POTWs. As for toxic organics.data from the same POTWs illustrates awide range of removal, from 0% togreater than 99%. Overall POTWs haveremoval rates of toxic organics whichare less effective than the metalfinishing TTO technology basis of nodumping of toxic organic wastes. ThePOTWs effluent discharge of specifictoxic pollutants ranged from 0 to 4.3 mg/1. Many of the pollutants present inmetal finishing wastes at sufficientlyhigh concentrations can inhibitbiodegradation in. POTW operations. Inaddition, a high concentration of toxicpollutants in the sludge. can limit POTWuse of sludge management alternatives,including the beneficial use of sludgeson agricultural lands.

The compliance date for the metalfinishing PSES isFebruary 15, 1986 for metals, cyanide,and TTO. Agency analysis indicatesthat facilities can plan, design, andinstall the necessary equipment in 31months, which will be allowed by thespecified compliance date. There is alsoa June 30, 1984 compliance date for aninterim toxic organic limit, which can bemet by in-house management andhandling controls.

For PSNS, limitations are based ontechnology equivalent to NSPS. Thepollutants regulated under PSNS are thesame as the toxics regulated underNSPS. As with PSES, these pollutantsare necessary for control in PSNS toprevent pass through, interference, andsludge contamination.

B. Part 413

Indirect discharging job shops andindependent printed circuit boardmanufacturers will continue to beregulated under the existing PSES forElectroplating. This is consistent with a1980 Settlement Agreement in which theNational Association of Metal Finishersand the Institute for Interconnecting andPackaging Electronic Circuits agreed notto challenge the Part 413 pretreatmentstandards for existing sourceelectroplaters, in return for the 1981amendments and an EPA commitmentthat, in light of their economicvulnerability, EPA did not plan todevelop significantly more stringentstandards for those -plants for the nextseveral years. .

32468


Control of toxic organics is beingadded to the requirements for facilitiesunder the Electroplating PSES.Examination of the technologyrequirements, costs, economic impact,and timing indicates that requiringcontrol of toxic organics is consistentwith the Settlement Agreement.

First, it will not increase the economicvulnerability of job shops orindependent printed circuit boardmanufacturers. Compliance with thetoxic organic standards can be achievedby good management practices [i.e., notdumping waste solvents into thewastewaters). No additional end-of-pipetechnology (beyond that alreadyrequired by Part 413) is necessary.Economic analyses reveal that control oftoxic organics does not imposesignificant additional costs or impacts.

Second, these facilities arebeingallowed 3 years to comply with the toxicorganic standard. Thus, even if controlof TTO were considered "morestringent", the time allowed forcompliance will amount to 6 years fromthe date of the Settlement Agreement.That fulfills the Agency's obligation notto develop more stringent standards forthese facilities in the next several years.

X. Derivation of the Limitations

EPA began development of thesestandards by building on theinformation obtained in developing theElectroplating Pretreatment Standards.For Metal Finishing, 2783 companieswere contacted as part of two surveys(one of 1190 plants and the other of 365plants) and 1555 useable questionaireresponses were obtained. The Agencyalso selected 322 plants for visits and/orobtained long term self-monitoring dataon them.

The data gathering effort was thebasis for the Agency's first two criticaldeterminations. First, pursuant toSection 307(b] of the Act, EPA identifiedthose pollutants that would pass throughor interfere with a POTW, or its sludge.Second, EPA discovered that a basicand "classic" pollution controltechnology was widely practiced in theindustry. The system is designed toremove toxic metals from rawwastestreams and it has two principalcomponents-precipitation andclarification. Of 1190 surveyed plants,689 reported treatment present, of these,426 facilities practiced the precipitationof metals through pH adjustment ofwastewater.

EPA then analyzed the data todiscover what those classic andcommonly used treatment devices couldachieve. For each regulated pollutantEPA.looked for two key figures: Theaverage concentration that properly

operated technology would achieve overtime, and the variability from thataverage that would be inevitable evenat well-operated plants.

To find long-term concentrationaverages, EPA examined its file of 322plants which had been visited and/orhad sent long-term self-monitoring datato EPA. Of these plants EPA hadsampled 72 with precipitation andclarification. After deletions forimproper treatment, dilution, and lowraw waste concentrations, 30 plants(sampled by EPA from 1 to 6 days) wereused for developing the long-termconcentration averages. For theseplants, EPA had obtained detailedinformation on treated and untreated(raw] wastewater characteristics.

For most pollutants the average of thisdata was used for the long term average.EPA sampled data for cadmium andlead appeared too low to represent therange of raw wastes in the industry. Forthese parameters EPA used availableself-monitoring data to calculate thelong-term average. Although the Agencyhas less information on which to judgethe adequacy of treatment in the self-monitoring data, these higher valueswere used by the Agency to compensatefor the relatively low raw wastecadmium and lead at EPA sampledplants. The average of the self-monitoring data for lead and cadmiumwas used for the long-term average.

The regulations specify daily andmonthly average maximums. Thus, thelimits are developed from the Agencyassessment of long term concentrationaverages multiplied by variabilityfactors. If a plant intends to consistentlycomply with the regulatory limit itshould use the long term concentrationaverage as the basis for design andopeiation. The following long-termconcentration averages were found to beattainable by the technology EPAassessed, and were costed in thisrulemaking. They are presented here asguidance to dischargers and controlauthorities:

Long Term Concentration Averages

Long termconcen-tration

Pollutant of pollutant property averagemilligrams

per liter(mg/I)

Cadmium (M") .......... .......... 0.13Chrom ium M .............................................................. 0.572Copper (T) ......................................... ..................... 0.815Lead (T) ........................................................................ 0.20N ickel (T) ...................................................................... 0.942Silver (T) ...................... 0.096Zinc (T ) ........................................................................ 0.549Cyanide (T) ................................................................ 0.18Cyanide. A ....................................... ......................... 0.06

Long Term Concentration Averages-Continued

Long termconcen-tration

Pollutant of pollutant property averagemilligramsper liter(mg/1)

O 8 & G rease ................................................................ 11.8T S S ............................................................................... 11.16 .8TTO (raw waste) ......................................................... 1.08TTO (effluent) ............................................................ 0.434

Variability factors were determinedby looking at variations that haveoccurred in the past. This requiresmultiple observations at singletreatment systems. The self-monitoringdata collected by EPA providedapproximately 12,000 self-reportingobservations which were used to derive-variability factors. The variabilityfactors were derived by estimating 99thpercentiles based on a lognormaldistribution, and then dividing thosenumbers by the average. These Part 433metal finishing standards are based onthe variability expected for one-day and'one-month time periods. The monthlyvariability factors were derivedassuming the monthly average wascomprised of ten daily observations.

Finally, the Agency multiplied theresulting variability factor by theexpected long-term concentrationaverages. The results were effluentconcentration limits based on actualobservations of well-operated plantswhich allowed for the variabilityobserved at all types of reportingfacilities. EPA has assessed the cost ofthis regulation on the assumption thatplants design and operate to meet theselong term concentration averages. Thefinal limits represent limits which awell-designed and operated plant shouldmeet approximately 99% of the time. If aplant designs and operates its treatmentsystem to achieve the long-termconcentration average and reasonablecontrol fluctuations, then it should havevery little expectation of exceeding thepromulgated limit for each sampling ofthe discharge.

XI. Changes From the Proposed Limits

As previously stated the limitationsare derived using long-term averagesand variability factors. Both of theseitems underwent some changes betweenproposal and promulgation.

With regard to long-termconcentration averages only slightchanges were made. Additional datawere added to the data base for leadand zinc, and one plant's data forcadmium were excluded due tocomplexing problems. The long-termconcentration average for lead changed

32469


from 0.17 to 0.20 mg/i, zinc changedfrom 0.582 to 0.549 mg/i, and cadmiumchanged from 0.19 to 0.13 mg/1.

The derivation of the proposed TTOlimit did not distinguish differencesbetween plants. Comments suggestedthat plants with certain processesshould be allowed a higher limit. EPA inresponse, examined grouping of plantsby sources of TTO;*e.g. those thatperform solvent degreasing, and/orpainting. Plants which performed bothsolvent degreasing and painting hadhigher raw waste TTO than any otherprocess group. The final TTO limit isbased on that process grouping, which isa conservative assumption since it hadthe highest background concentration.Furthermore, EPA is now promulgatingtwo TTO limits for plants covered byPart 433. The first is based solely onbackground levels found prior to end-of-pipe treatment. It must be met by June30, 1984, except that plants covered byPart 420 (iron and steel) need not meet ituntil July 10, 1985. The second TTO limitis based on effluent data and takes intoaccount the additional removalsachieved by end-of-pipe treatment. Thissecond limit must be met by February15, 1986. Most facilities should be ableto meet this limit after installing end-of-pipe treatment to meet the electroplatingPSES of Part 413. However Part 433allows the period until February 15, 1986in case additional process streamspresent special compliance problems.

For PSES, job shops and independentprinted circuit board manufacturers areregulated only under Part 413. They willhave until July 15, 1986 to comply withTTO. Thus "several years" will havefollowed the Settlement Agreement of.1980.

In calculating variability factors.changes were made to both the dailymaximum variability and thirty dayvariability. First, the daily maximumvariability was calculated in theproposal by using lognormal statisticsfor plants with less than 100 samplingdays and a nonparametric procedure forplants reporting 100 or moreobservations. For the final regulation theAgency found that the larger data setshad a good fit to the lognormaldistribution. Thus the Agency is usingthe lognormal procedure for all datasets. Second, 30 day limits based on theaverage of 30 samples have beenreplaced with a monthly average basedon 10 samples per reporting period. Thisis consistent with other recent EffluentGuidelines for similar industrialcategories.

In addition, the Agency responded tocomments that the statisticalmethodology used in proposal did notpredict percent exceedances of the 30

day limits consistently with the 99%criterion used to derive the limits. Themain reason for this was that day to daydependence in the data was nutaccounted for in deriving the proposedlimits. In deriving the 10 sample monthlylimits, the Agency examined datadependence in three ways. First, byfitting the data to a statistical timeseries model; second, by incorporatingdirect computations of auto-correlationsinto derivations of the limits; and third,by fitting observed sequences of 10 dayaverages to a lognormal distribution.The final monthly limits weredetermined by fitting observedsequences of 10 day averages to alognormal distribution because thisprovided the most satisfactory fit to thedata. The general effect of thesestatistical changes was to raise somelimits.

Another change is that an alternativeamenable cyanide limit is madeavailable to facilities with significantforms of cyanide (i.e., iron cyanides) notcontrollable by the technology basis.

XII. Pollutants and Subcategories notRegulated

Paragraph 8 of the SettlementAgreement contains provisionsauthorizing EPA to exclude toxicpollutants and industry categories and§ubcategories from regulation undercertain circumstances.

A. Exclusion of Toxic Pollutants

Paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of the SettlementAgreement authorizes the Administratorto exclude from regulation toxicpollutants:

* Not detectable by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-art methods; or

* Present In amounts too small to beeffectively reduced by availabletechnologies; or

- Present only in trace amounts andneither causing nor likely to cause toxiceffects; or

e Detected in the effluent from only asmall number of sources within asubcategory and uniquely related tothose sources; or

• That will be effectively controlledby technologies on which other effluentlimitations and standards are based.

Appendix B to this notice indicatesthe reason for the exclusion of eachtoxic pollutant excluded from regulationon the basis of the paragraph 8 criteria.

B. Exclusion of SVbcotegories

In selecting effluent limitations for theMetal Finishing category as a whole,EPA has not established subcategoriesand, therefore, has not excluded any ,

subcategories from toxic pollutantregulation. However, as discussedabove, job shops and IPCBMs which areexisting indirect dischargers remainsubject to the less stringent Part 413requirements.

XIII. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits,and Economic Impact

A. Cost and Economic Impacts

The economic impact assessment ofthis regulation is presented in EconomicImpact Analysis of Effluent Standardsand Limitations for the Metal FinishingIndustry. The analysis details theinvestment and annual costs that theindustry will incur as a result of thisregulation. The report assesses theimpact of effluent control costs in termsof plant closures, unemployment effects,and increases in the costs of production.

Since proposal, the economic impactanalysis has been revised to reflectchanges warranted on the basis ofcomments received and as a result'ofcontinued EPA review. Monitoring andcompliance costs associated with thecontrol of the tegulated pollutants havebeen estimated for each industry sectorand are presented below. Also, theeconomic analysis has been revised toreflect a current nominal cost of capitalof 13 percent versus the 10 percentoriginally used. In addition, theEconomic Analysis was revised to moreclearly present supporting data fromelsewhere in the record. Finally, theindirect discharging captive facilitieswith flows less than 10,000 gallons perday have been included in the analysis.Costs and impacts for this group arepresented separately below. Thisindustry group was inadvertentlyomitted from the earlier economicimpact analysis.

In order to measure the potentialeconomic impact, EPA reviewed itsincremental effect on each of the sectorsof the industry (described above in the"Overview of the Industry," and Table1). These impacts are presentedseparately below for direct and indirectdischarging facilities by job shop,independent printed circuit board shopand captive shop facilities. Theincremental combined investment andannual costs, which include interest anddepreciation, for all metal finishingfacilities incurring costs are $351 millionand $118 million respectively. Thesecosts are in 1982 dollars, as are thosepresented below. No plant closures oremployment effects are projected.Increases in the cost of productionaverage 0.02 percent. If all 10,409facilities using end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies are required by the

32470


municipalities and permit writers tomonitor 10 days per month, the totalannual costs increase by $61 millionfrom $118 million to $179 million. Noclosures or employments effects areprojected to result from this level ofmonitoring; the average increase in costof production would be 0.03 percentversus the 0.02 percent presented above.The Agency has determined that thisregulation would be economicallyachievable even if all facilities arerequired to monitor 10 days a month. Nomeasureable balance of trade effect isexpected from this regulation due to theestimated small change in the price ofmetal finishing products.

BPT

Direct discharging facilities are notexpected to incur costs to comply withthe metals and cyanide limitationsbecause these facilities are alreadycovered by NPDES permits which setBPT limits on case-by-case bestengineering judgments. A 1981 survey ofrandomly selected permits indicates thatnearly all existing permits specify limitsequivalent to, or more stringent than,those contained in this regulation.

Direct discharging facilities may incurcosts to comply with the limitation ontotal toxic organics. EPA assessed TTOcompliance costs on the assumption thatall plants would incur baselinemonitoring costs of $1,904 on a one timebasis. EPA believes that almost allplants will then comply through thecertification process. Nevertheless, EPAassumed that those facilities whichcurrently dump would not be able to usethe certification process and wouldincur annual compliance costs. (Thissame procedure was used for TTOcompliance under PSES.) EPA hasassumed that the annual BPTcompliance costs could be $29,000 forjob shops, $34,700 for independentprinted circuit board manufacturers and$468,000 for captive shop facilities.These costs apply to 10 out of 365 directdischarging job shops, 12 out of 44 directdischarging independent printed circuitboard manufacturers, and 162 out of2,500 direct discharging captive shopfacilities. Increases in the cost ofproduction resulting from the control ofTTO are not expected to exceed 0.9percent. No closure or employmenteffects are projected for these sectors.

BAT

Since the BAT limitations are thesame as the BPT limitations, there is noincremental cost or impact associatedwith compliance with the BATlimitationw.

PSES

Indirect discharging job shop andindependent printed circuit boardfacilities are expected to incur costsonly to comply with the TTO limitationwhich is being added to theelectroplating pretreatment standards inPart 413. This TTO limitation is includedin the regulation because compliancewill significantly reduce toxic organicpollution and will cause negligibleeconomic impacts on these industrysectors. EPA is not imposing metals andcyanide limitations more stringent thanthose specified in the existing applicablepretreatment standards despiteevidence that such limits can be reliablyachieved by the technology that formsthe basis of the current standards. Thisis consistent with a March 1980Settlement Agreement in which therelevant trade associations agreed not tochallenge the Part 413 pretreatmentstandards for existing sourceelectroplaters.

Approximately 77 of an estimated2,734 indirect discharging job shops and88 of the 327 indirect independentprinted circuit board manufacturers areassumed to incur costs to comply withthe TTO standard. Annual costs of$222,500 and $254,300 respectively areprojected for the two sectors. Theaverage annual cost per facility tocomply with the TTO limitations isapproximately $2900, primarily forsampling and analysis. No closures oremployment effects are projected forthese sectors. Production cost increasesare expected not to exceed 0.03 percentfor the two sectors.

Non-integrated indirect dischargingcaptive facilities with effluent flowsgreater then 10,000 gallons per day areassumed to incur additional costs tocomply with the TTO standard. Controlof metals and cyanide can be achievedthrough capital investment alreadyrequired by currently effectiveelectroplating regulations. Although themetals and cyanide standardspromulgated today are more stringentthan those in the currently effectiveelectroplating regulations, they can bemet through.use of the same pollutioncontrol equipment relied on to meet theelectroplating pretreatment standards.The $167,600 of annual costs associatedwith control of TTO applies to 58 of the900 nonintegrated captive indirectdischargers with flow greater than10,000 gpd.'No closure or divestituresare expected to occur.

Non-integrated indirect dischargingcaptive facilities with flows less than10,000 gallons per day will incur costsfrom both the metals and cyanidestandards and the TTO standards.

Unlike the prior group with flows greaterthan 10,000 gpd, this group wasgenerally exempt from Part 413'sprecipitation/clarification basedpretreatment standards. Their inclusionin the metal finishing standard couldnecessitate investments in both end-of-pipe and in-plant treatmenttechnologies. The cost for these facilitiesto comply with the metals and cyanidestandards totals $11.8 million annually.These costs apply to 912 out of anestimated 2850 nonintegriated indirectdischarging captive facilities with flowsless than 10,000 gpd. Data indicate thatthe remainder of these plants alreadyhave adequate treatment in place. Theannual cost to comply with the TTOstandard is $534,600; this applies to 185facilities. The average increase in thecost of production is approximately onepercent. No closure or employmentimpacts are projected.

Of the 3,750 facilities in the lastindustry sector, integrated indirectdischarging captives, 1,200 may incuraggregate costs of $104 million annuallyto comply with the metals and cyanidestandards and 243 of these facilities mayincur costs of approximately $705,000annually to comply with the TTOstandard. Integrated shops performmetal finishing operations in addition toelectroplating processes. Thus, they areaffected by the existing electroplatingstandards as well as by today'sregulation. EPA anticipates that theintegrated facilities will comply with themetal finishing standards by treatingtheir total process discharge through asingle treatment system that would bemore costly than the one required solelyto treat electroplating wastewaters.

The costs indicated above reflect theadditional costs of complying with themetal finishing standard; theelectroplating costs were reviewed in anearlier regulation 40 CFR Part 413, 44 FR52590, September 7, 1979 and they serveas the baseline for determining theimpacts ofthe metal finishing regulation.To determine the baseline costs requiredto comply with the electroplatingpretreatment standards, EPA firstrevised its earlier estimates, based onupdated surveys of treatment in place,improved estimates of the population ofaffected captive shops, and calculatedcosts attributed to the electroplatingflow of integrated captive indirectdischargers. The revised estimate (in1982 dollars) indicates that this sector'scosts for compliance with theelectroplating pretreatment standardsare $512 million in capital costs and $169million in annual costs, includinginterest and depreciation. EPA nowestimates that the major economic

32471


effects of that regulation would be 24plant closures and six electroplatingdivestitures which could result in 896job losses and 84 job transfers.

In estimating the economic impact oftoday's metal finishing regulation, EPAassessed the costs of treating theadditional flows covered by today'sregulation at the model plants used inthe electroplating analysis. The costsused in conducting the economic impactanalysis reflect the cost of treating allprocess flows, expect for the sixelectroplating process streams specifiedin Part 413. To the extent these flowsinclude processes not regulated undermetal finishing, the costs and resultingimpacts overstate the effect of the metalfinishing regulation.

EPA's estimates of the effects of theseregulations are based on a sample ofapproximately 1,100 plants. The resultshave been extrapolated to the fullpopulation of 3,750 plants in this sector.For each model plant the analysisdetermines the incremental increase inthe costs of production to comply withthe metal finishing standards. If aplant's compliance costs relative tosales are high, the analysis projectsmetal finishing process line divestituresor plant closures. Additional impacts,thus, are those due to today's metalfinishing regulation only. Investmentcosts are expected to totalapproximately $351 million, whileannual costs are projected to beapproximately $118 million, includinginterest and depreciation. The annualcosts represent approximately 0.20percent of the $60 billion annual value ofshipments from integrated indirectcaptive plants. EPA's analysis projectsthat this would lead to no plant closuresor process line divestitures, and that noemployment disruption would result.The TTO portion of these total annualcosts shown above is approximately$705,000. TTO costs apply to 243 of the3750 integrated indirect dischargingcaptive facilities.

Finally, EPA assessed the combinedimpact of today's regulation and theelectroplating pretreatment regulationon the captive integrated indirectdischarging sector of the industry. Thisanalysis, like those'for electroplatingand metal finishing alone, was based oncosts for the treatment technology usedfor the development of the limitations.Some plants may receive removalcredits or install less expensivetechnology. In addition, EPA hasdeferred the compliance date forintegrated facilities, thereby allowingplants additional time to plan forcompliance and not be subject totreatment costs. This analysis indicated

that the combined investment for thecaptive integrated indirect dischargingsector for both regulations was $827million, with annual costs of $274million, including interest anddepreciation. Thirty plants (out of 3,750)might divest their electroplating lines orclose, and 980 jobs (out of 450,000) couldbe lost or displaced. These impacts arethe same as those due to theelectroplating pretreatment standardsalone. No additional closures,divestitures, or unemployment effectsare expected from the more stringent

-standards promulgated today.

NSPS and PSNS

Finally, the requirements for newsources are the same as those forexisting sources, except that cadmiummust be controlled more stringently. Theincremental cost of compliance with thecadmium control ranges from $14,000 to$24,000 per facility depending on thewater flow. These costs representbetween 0.02 and 2.0 percent ofprojected value of sales for thesefacilities. Since cadmium plating occursat only about 15% of the facilities and in-plant controls can be designed into newfacilities, there is expected to be nocompetitive disadvantage for newsources seeking to enter the industry.

Total Toxic Organics

EPA's economic analysis of the TTOlimit had its own costing methodolgy. Itsresults were incorporated into theimpact analyses for the other specifiedlimits. EPA believes, however, that acertification procedure will make thesecosts unnecessary in almost all cases.

The Agency is offering thecertification procedure as an alternativeto self-monitoring because frequentmonitoring for toxic organics could beexpensive. Under the certificationprocedures facilities can identify thetoxic organics used and certify that theresultant wastes are being properlydisposed, i.e., recovered or contracthauled. The Agency expects that almostall plants will certify.

Some plants may still be required tomonitor. However, estimating thenumber of facilities that may still berequired to monitor TTO must beaccomplished indirectly, because thereis no history to indicate how controlauthorities will apply toxic organicrequirements and certificationalternatives to monitoring. The Agencyexamined two indicators of the need torequire monitoring. The first was thepercentage of plants that currently dumpwaste solvent degreasers. Thispercentage may approximate thepopulation size that control authoritiesneed to check. Only 24% of the captives

use solvent degreasing, which is the,primary source of potential toxic organicviolations in these wastewaters.Comparable figures .are 10.3% for jobshops and 100% for printed circuit boardmanufacturers.

These wastes can profitably berecovered by the plant and some wastehaulers, who pay for waste solvents,have been identified, and are cited inthe public record. Approximately 73% ofthe facilities which utilize solventdegreasers, already properly dispose ofthis waste. However even the 27% of thepopulation who now dump theirsolvents will probably stop that practiceand be eligible for certification. Inaddition some of the solvent degreasersthat these plants use do not contain anytoxic organics. Other sburces of toxicorganics present at metal finishingplants may compensate for the Agency'sconservative assessment on degreasingbut this should not be significant sincedumped solvent degreasers are clearlythe single most significant source ofTTO in wastewaters. Thus thisapproach leads to a conservativeoverestimation by the Agency.

The second approach was to examinethe percentage of EPA sampled datawhich exceeded the TTO limit and toconsider this as a measure of thefraction of facilities -needing monitoring.This was 2.6 percent of the data (i.e.,97.4% of sampled data already complieswith the TTO limit). The 2.6 percentexceedance rate of the TTO limit duringEPA's sampling supports the need forcertification and for control authoritiesto establish reasoned plant specificmonitoring frequencies.

For purposes of economic analysesthe number of facilities costed for TTOmonitoring was estimated to beequivalent to the number of facilitiescurrently dumping solvents. Theeconomic Impact analysis alsoperformed two sensitivity analyses. Thefirst was with a greater number of plantsmonitoring for TTO. The secondassumed that plants monitored for TTOmonthly instead of quarterly. Bothchanges led to only slightly differentimpacts. All scenarios were found to beacceptable and economicallyachievable.

Summary

The Agency concludes that the finalregulation is economically achievable,and the impacts are justified in light ofthe effluent reductions achieved. Themetal finishing regulation will removean additional 20 million pounds per yearof metals and cyanide and 10 millionpounds per year of toxic organics.

32472


B. Executive Order 12291

Under Executive Order 12291 theAgency must determine whether aregulation is "Major" and thereforesubject to the requirements of aRegulatory Impact Analysis. Major rulesimpose an annual cost to the economyof $100 million or more or meet othereconomic impact criteria. Based on theAgency's estimates this regulation couldhave an annual effect on the economy ofmore than $100 million, making it amajor regulation.

Executive Order 12291 does notrequire a Regulatory Impact Analysiswhere its consideration would conflictwith the develop ment of regulationspursuant to a court order, as with thismetal finishing regulation. EPA hasprepared, however, an analysis thatcontains many of the elements of aRegulatory Impact Analysis. A copy ofthe analysis can be obtained from AlecMcBride, Monitoring and Data SupportDivision, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401 MStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pub. L. 96-354 requires that aRegulatory Flexibility Analysis beprepared for regulations that have aSignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. The analysismay be done in conjunction with, or aspart of, any other analysis conducted bythe Agency.

A small business analysis is includedin the economic impact analysis. Thisanalysis shows that there will not be asignificant impact on any .segment of theindustry, large or small. Therefore aformal Regulatory Flexibility.Analysiswas not required.

D. SBA Loans

The agency is continuing to encouragesmall plants-including circuit boardmanufacturers-to use Small BusinessAdministration (SBA) financing asneeded for pollution control equipment.The three basic programs are: (1) TheGuaranteed Pollution Control BondProgram, (2) the Section 503 Program,and (3) the Regular Guarantee Program.All the SBA loan programs are onlyopen to businesses that have: (a) netassets less than $6 million, and 1b) anaverage annual after-tax income of lessthan $2 million, and (c) fewer than 250employees.

For further information and specificson the Guaranteed Pollution ControlBond Program contact: U.S. SmallBusiness Administration, Office ofPollution Control Financing, 4040 NorthFairfax Drive, Rosslyn, Virginia 22203(703) 235-2902.

The Section 503 Program, as amendedin July 1980, allows long-term loans tosmall and medium sized businesses.These loans are made by SBA approvedlocal development companies. Thesecompanies are authorized to issueGovernment-backed debentures that arebrought by the Federal Financing Bank,an arm of the U.S. Treasury.

Through SBA's Regular GuaranteeProgram, loans are made available bycommercial banks and are guaranteedby the SBA. This program has interestrates equivalent to market rates.

For additional information on theRegular Guarantee and Section 503Programs contact your district or localSBA Office. The coordinator at EPAheadquarters is Ms. Frances Dessellewho may be reached at (202) 382-5373.

XIV. Non-Water-Quality EnvironmentalImpacts

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Sections 304(b)and 306 of the Act require EPA toconsider the non-water-qualityenvironmental impacts (including energyrequirements) of certain regulations. Tocomply, EPA considered the effect ofthis regulation on air, noise, radiation,and solid waste generation. Whilebalancing pollution problems againsteach other and against energy use isdifficult, EPA believes that the finalregulation best serves overall nationalgoals.

The following are the non-water-quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements)associated with today's regulation.

A. Air Pollution

Compliance with the BPT, BAT, NSPS.PSES, and PSNS will nint create anysubstantial air pollution problems.Alkaline chlorination for cyanidedestruction and chromium reductionusing sulfur dioxide may produce someemissions to the atmosphere.Precipitation and clarification, the majorportion of the technology basis, shouldnot result in any air pollution problems.In addition, control of total toxicorganics at the source will result in adecrease in the volatilization of solventsfrom streams and POTWs.

B. Noise

None of the wastewater treatmentprocesses cause significantobjectionable noise.

C. Radiation

None of the treatment processes poseany radiation hazards.

D. Solid Waste

EPA has considered the effect theseregulations would have on theaccumulation of hazardous waste, asdefined under Section 3001 of theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA). EPA estimates that the BPTand BAT limitations will not contributeto additional solid or hazardous wastes.However, PSES will increase the solidwastes from these plants byapproximately 165,000 metric tons peryear. This sludge can be hazardousbecause it will necessarily containadditional quantities (andconcentrations) of toxic metalpollutants. Disposal of these wastes wascosted as though they were hazardous.

EPA's Office of Solid Waste hasanalyzed the solid waste managementand disposal costs required by theindustry's compliance with RCRArequirements. Some results werepublished in 45 FR 33066 (May 19, 1980).In addition, RCRA costs have beenincluded in the costs and economicimpact analysis during the developmentof this regulation. However, sinceNovember 1980, EPA has received 196petitions to delist wastes from' metalfinishing facilities. Seventy-seven havebeen granted, 104 are pending and 15have been rejected. Thus it appears thatthe decision to cost all solid wastedisposal as hazardous probablyoverstated likely costs. Furthermore, theAgency has not assessed the savingslikely to occur because of reducedcontamination of POTW sludges. Thosesavings are likely to be considerable.

E. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that achieving the BPTand BAT effluent limitations will notincrease electrical energy consumption.

The Agency estimates that PSES willincrease electrical energy consumptionby approximately 142 million kilowatt-hours per year. For a typical existingindirect discharger, this will increaseenergy consumption less than onepercent of the total energy consumed forproduction.

The energy requirements for NSPSand PSNS are estimated to.be similar toenergy requirement for BAT. However,this can only be quantified in kwh/yearafter projections are made for new plantconstruction.

XV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"("BMPs"). EPA may develop BMPs thatapply to all industrial sites or to adesignated industrial category, and mayoffer guidance to permit authorities in

32473


establishing management practicesrequired by unique circumstances at agiven plant.

Although EPA is not prescribing themat this time, future BMPs could requiredikes, curbs, or other measures tocontain leaks and spills, and couldrequire the treatment of toxic pollutantsin these wastes.

XVI. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A recurring issue is whether industrylimitations and standards should includeprovisions that authorize noncomplianceduring "upset" or "bypasses." An upset,sometimes called an "excursion." Isunintentional noncompliance beyondthe reasonable control of the permittee.EPA believes that upset provisions arenecessary, because upsets willinevitably occur, even if the controlequipment is properly operated. Becausetechnology-based limitations can requireonly what technology can achieve, manyclaim that liability for upsets isimproper. When confronted with thisissue, courts have been divided on thequestions of whether an explicit upset orexcursion exemption is necessary orwhether upset or excursion incidentsmay be handled through EPA'senforcement discretion. CompareMarathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 504 F. 2d 1263(9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v.Castle, supra and Corn RefinersAssociation, et al. v. Costle, No. 78--1069(8th Cir. April 2, 1979). See alsoAmerican Petroleum Institute v. EPA,540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPCInternational, Inc. v. Train, 540 F. 2d1320 (8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train,539 F. 2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).

Unlike an upset-which is anunintentional episode-a bypass is anintentional noncompliance to,circumvent waste treatment facilitiesduring an emergency.

EPA has both upset and bypassprovisions in NPDES. permits, and theNPDES regulations include upset andbypass permit provisions. See 40 CFRPart 122.41, 48 FR 14151, 14168 (April 1,1983). The upset provision establishesan upset as an affirmative defense toprosecution for violation of technology-based effluent limitations. The bypassprovision authorizes bypassing toprevent loss of life, personal injury, orsevere property damage. Sincepermittees in the metal finishingindustry are entitled to the upset andbypass provisions in NPDES permits,this regulation need not repeat theseprovisions. Upset provisions are alsocontained in the general pretreatmentregulation.

XVII. Variances and ModificationsFederal and State NPDES permits to

direct dischargers must enforce theseeffluent standards. The pretreatmentlimitations apply directly to indirectdischargers.

The only exception to the BPT effluentlimitations is EPA's "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance. See E. I.duPont de Nemours and Co. v. Train,supro; Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Castle,supro. This variance recognizescharacteristics of a particular dischargerin the category regulated that arefundamentally different from thecharacteristics considered in thisrulemaking. Although this varianceclause was set forth in EPA's 1973-1976industry regulations, it need not beincluded in this regulation. See 40 CFRPart 125.30.

Dischargers subject to the BATlimitations are also eligible for EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. BAT limitations fornonconventional pollutants may bemodified under Sections 301(c) and301(g) of the Act. These statutorymodifications do not apply to toxic orconventional pollutants. According toSection 301(j)(1)(B), applications forthese modifications must be filed within270 days after promulgation of finaleffluent limitations and standards. See43 FR 40859 (Sept. 13, 1978). These Part413 and Part 433 regulations do notregulate any non-conventional, non-toxic, pollutants. If any of the regulatedpollutants are declared non-toxic, andnon-conventional in the future, thendischargers may seek 301(c) or 301(g)modifications.

Indirect dischargers subject to PSESare eligible for the "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance and forcredits for toxic pollutants removed bk,POTW. See 40 CFR 403.7; 403.13; 46 FR9404 (January 28, 1981). Indirectdischargers subject to PSNS are onlyeligible for the credits provided for in 40CFR 403.7. New sources subject to NSPSare not eligible for EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance or any statutory or regulatorymodifications.. See E. I. duPont deNemours v. Train, supra.XVIII. Implementation of Limitationsand StandardsA. Relation to NPDES Permits.

The BPT, BAT, and NSPS in thisregulation will be applied to individualmetal finishing plants through NPDESpermits issued by EPA or approvedState agencies under Section 402 of theAct. The preceding section of this .preamble discussed the binding effect ofthis regulation on NPDES permits.

except when variances andmodifications are expressly authorized.This section adds more detail on therelation between this regulation andNPDES permits.

EPA has developed the limitationsand standards in this regulation to coverthe typical facility for this point sourcecategory. In specific cases, the NPDESpermitting authority may have to

,establish permit limits on toxicpollutants that are not covered by thisregulation-This regulation does notrestrict the power of any permit-issuingauthority to comply with law or anyEPA regulation, guideline, or policy. Forexample, if this regulation does notcontrol a particular pollutant, the permitissuer may still limit the pollutant on acase-by-case basis, when such actionconforms with the purposes of the Act.In addition, if State water qiualitystandards or other provisions of State orFederal law require limits on pollutantsnot covered by this regulation (orrequire more stringent limits on coveredpollutants), the permit-issuing authoritymust apply those limitations.

B. Indirect Dischargers

For indirect dischargers, PSES andPSNS are implemented under NationalPretreatment Program proceduresoutlined in 40 CFR Part 403. The tablebelow may be of assistance in resolvingquestions about the operation of thatprogram. A brief explanation of some ofthe submissions indicated on the tablefollows:

A "request for category determinationrequest" is a written request, submittedby an indirect discharger or its POTW,for a certification on whether theindirect discharger falls within aparticular subcategory listed in acategorical pretreatment standard. Thisassists the indirect discharger inknowing just which PSES or PSNS limitsit will be required to meet. See 40 CFR403.6(a).

A "request for fundamentally differentfactors variance" is a mechanism bywhich a categorical pretreatmentstandard may be adjusted, making itmore or less stringent, on a case-by-casebasis. If an indirect discharger, a POTW,or any interested person believes thatfactors relating to specific indirectdischarger are fundamentally differentfrom those factors considered duringdevelopment of the relevant categoricalpretreatment standard and that theexistence of those factors justifies adifferent discharge limit fro~. thatspecified in the categorical, standard.then they may submit a request to EPAfor such a variance. See 40 CFR 403.13.

32474

Federal Register / Vol. 48,_No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

A "baseline monitoring report" is thefirst report an indirect discharger mustfile following promulgation of astandard applicable to it. The baselinereport includes: an indentification of theindirect discharger; a description of itsoperations; a report on the flows ofregulated streams and the results ofsanrpling analyses to determine levels ofregulated pollutants in those streams; astatement of the discharger'scompliance or noncompliance with thestandard; and a description of anyadditional steps required to achievecompliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b)

A "report on compliance" is requiredof each indirect discharger within 90days following the date for compliancewith an applicable categoricalpretreatment standard. The report mustindicate the nature and concentration ofall regulated pollutants in the facility'sregulated process wastestreams; theaverage and maximum daily flows of theregulated streams; and a statement ofWhether compliance is consistently .being achieved, and if not, whatadditional operation and maintenanceand/or pretreatment is necessary toachieve compliance. See 40 CFR403.12(d)

A "periodic compliance report" is areport on continuing compliance with allapplicable categorical pretreatmentstandards. It is submitted twice per year(June and December) by indirectdischargers subject to the standards.The report shall indicate the precisenature and concentrations of theregulated pollutants in its discharge tothe POTW; the average and maximumdaily flow rates of the facility; the-methods used by the indirect dischargerto sample and analyze the data, and acertification that these methodsconformed to those methods Outlined inthe regulations. See 40 CFR 403.12(e)

TABLE 2.-INDIRECT DISCHARGERS SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTAL AND COMPLIANCE

Rem/event

Request for category deter-mination.

Request for fundamentallydifferent factors variance.

Applicablesources

Date or timeperiod Measured from

I- -4

Existing .................... 1 0 days.

Now .........................

A ll ............................

Baseline monitoring report . All .............

cr 60 days ...............

Frior tocommencementof discharge toPOTW.

180 days ..................

or 30 days ...............

.180 days

Report on com pliance .............. I Existing ................... 90 days....................

Periodic Compliance Reports..

New .........................

A ll ............................

90 days....

June andDecember.

From effective date of stand-ard.

From FEDERAL REGISTER De-velopment DocumentAvailability'.

From effective date of stand-ard.

From final decision on cate-gory determination.

From effective date of stand-ard or final decision oncategory determination.

From date for final compli-ance.

From commencement of dis-charge to POTW.

Item submitted to

Director.

Director.

Control authority

Control authority

Control authority.=

I Director = a) Chief Administrative Officer of a State water pollution control agency with an approved pretreatment programor b) EPA Regional Water Division Director, if State does not have an approved pretreatment program.

Control Authority = a) POTW if its pretreatment program has been approved or b) Director of State water pollution controlagency with an approved pretreatment program or c) EPA Regional Administrator. if State does not have an approvedpretreatment program.

C. Applicability and Compliance Dates

In the'electroplating/metal finishingindustry some facilities are subject tothe Electroplating Category (Part 413)and/or the Metal Finishing Category(Part 433). Table 3 below illustrateswhich of the regulations are applicableto the various types of facilities.Facilities are subject only to Part 433(metal finishing) for.BPT, BAT, NSPS,and PSNS. For PSES, facilities generally

fall within the applicability of bothParts, although, for each pollutant, onlyone Part will apply at a given time.There are two exceptions: (1) Existingindirect discharging job shops andIPCBMs have been exempted from thePart 433 Metal Finishing PSES, and (2)metal finishing wastewaters at iron andsteel mills are exempted from the Part413 Electroplating PSES.

TABLE 3.-APPLICABILITY

Metals sCfinishing at

Job, shops IPCBM Captives iron andsteel mills'

PSES:E lectro plating (P a rt 4 13 ) ....................................................... x .......................... x ........................... x ..........................Metal Finishing (Part 433) ............................................. ........ ................. .... ..... . .............. x.

BPT, BAT. NSPS, PSNS:M etal Finishing ............................................................... a........ x .......................... x ............ x ........................

P Electroplating process wastewater at iron and steel mills was excluded from the Electroplating PSES by 40 CFR 413 01.Plows from the metal finishing processesat those plants are covered by 40 CFR 433.

32475

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Ru.les and Regulations

The compliance dates for the twocategories are presented in Table 4. BPT,BAT, PSNS, and NSPS compliance datesare specified by the Clean Water Act.The compliance dates for ElectroplatingPSES were set in the Federal Register onSeptember 28, 1982. See 47 FR 42698.Today's regulation allows facilities 3years to comply with the ElectroplatingPSES for toxic organics consistent withthe Settlement Agreement with NAMF.For metal finishing, the Agency isallowing 31 months for compliance withall parameters. In addition an interimTTO limit has been established forcompliance by June 30,1984; except formetal finishing wastewaters from plantsvhich are also subject to Part 420 (ironand steel), which must comply by July10, 1985. This last exception is pursuantto a settlement agreement with the steelindustry in which EPA agreed thatpretreatment requirements would applyto steel discharges in July 1985. It ispossible that control of TTO in metalfinishing waste streams could, in somecases, lead steel facilities to installtreatment technology on the dischargefrom their steel processes. Therefore,EPA has decided to allow plantscovered by Part 420 until June, 1985 tocomply with the TTO limit.

TABLE 4.-COMPLIANCE DATES

Regulation Compliance date

Electroplating PSES for... April 27. 1984 (for noninte.grated plants).

Metals and Cyanide (Part June 30, 1984 (for integrated413). plants)..

Electroplating PSES (Part July 15, 1986.413) for TTO.1.

Metal Finishing BPT (Part As soon as possible.433).

Metal Finishing BAT .................. July 1, 1984.Metal Finishing PSES for June 30, 1984 (except for

TTO. . plants covered by Part420); July 10, 1985 (forplants covered by Part420).

Metal Finishing PSES for February 15, 1986.Metals, Cyanide and TTO..

Metal Finishing NSPS and From commencement of dis.PSNS. charge.

IFor these facilities the first TTO limit is based onmanagement practices only.

2 This TTO limit is based on management practices lol-lowed by percipitation/clarification.

D. Enforcement

A final topic of concern is theoperation of EPA's enforcement

program. This was an importantconsideration in developing thisregulation. EPA deliberately sought toavoid standards which would beexceeded by routine fluctuations ofwell-designed and operated treatmentsystems. These standards weredeveloped so as to represent limitswhich such a plant would meetapproximately 99% of the time.

The Clean Water Act is a strictliability statute. EPA emphasizes,however, that it can exercise discretionin deciding to initiate enforcementproceedings (Sierra Club v. Train, 557 F.2d 485, 5th Cir., 1977). EPA hasexercised, and intends to exercise, thatdiscretion in a manner that recognizesand promotes good-faith compliance.

XIX. Summary of Public Participation

At the time of publication of theproposed metal finishing regulation(August 31, 1982), EPA solicitedcomments on the proposed rules and, inparticular, on six specific issues. Ninety-one commenters responded to these andother issues relating to the electroplatingand metal finishing standards. Thefollowing parties submitted comments:

Air Transport Association of AmericaAlpha Industries Inc.The Aluminum Association IncorporatedAmerican AirlinesAmerican Foundrymen's SocietyAmerican Hot Dip GalvanizersAmerican Metal Stamping AssociationAnerock CorporationAnaconda Aluminum CompanyAnsul Fire ProtectionApollo Metals, Inc.American Telephone and Telegraph

CompanyAtwoodBabcock and WilcoxBausch and LombCalifornia Metal Enameling Co.Caterpillar Tractor CompanyCharles A. FrawleyChrysler Corp.Control Data CorporationCounty Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

CountyCumberland Corporation

D.A.B. Industries, Inc.Deere and CompanyDelta Afflines. Inc.Department of the Air ForceEaton CorporationE. 1. DuPont de Nemours and Co.Eltech Systems Corp.EMP Laboratories, Incorporated

EPA Region VERC-LancyFederal-Mogul CorporationFerro CorporationFord Motor Co.General Electric CompanyGeneral Motors CorporationGoodyear Aerospace CorporatiQnGoodyear Tire and Rubber Co.Gould Eledtronics and Electrical ProductsGTE Services CorporationGWS Technology. Inc.Harris CorporationHarvey Hubbell IncorporatedHofmann Industries IncorporatedHoneywellHalogenated Solvent Industry AllianceHuntington AlloysImperial Clevite. Inc.Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging

Electronic CircuitsITT Telecommunications CorporationJenn-Air CorporationJayto CorporationKaiser Aluminum and Chemical CorporationMasco CorporationManufacturing Association of Central New

YorkMaytagMetal Finishing Association of Southern

CaliforniaMetro Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleMidland Ross CorporationMilwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District3M CompanyMobay Chemical CorporationModine Manufacturing CompanyNational Association of Metal FinishersNational Electrical Manufacturers'

AssociationNew York State Department of

Environmental ConservationNorthern TelecomOzark AirlinesPCK Technology DivisionPEC-IndustriesPioneer Metal Finishing, Inc.Porcelain Enamel InstitutePorcelain Metals CorporationPraegitzer Industries Inc.Raytheon CompanyRepublic AirlinesRexnordReynolds AluminumRockford Area Chambers of CommerceR.R. Donnelley and SonsSanders Associates Inc.Sanitary District of RockfordSperry CorporationSquare D CompanyState of Connecticut Department of

Environmental ProtectionState of Vermont Agency of Environmental

ConservationState of Wisconsin Department of Natural

ResourcesUnited Airlines

32476


Whirlpool CorporationYork Metal Finishing Co.

The major issues raised bycommenters are addressed in thissection. A summary of all commentsreceived and of our responses isincluded in the public record for thisregulation.

1. Comment: Many commentersobjected to the certification languageEPA proposed as an alternative to TTOMonitoring. One commenter pointed outthat EPA had recently proposed newcertification language for signatories topermit applications and reports (40 CFR122.6] as part of a settlement agreementin the consolidated permits litigation,(NRDC v. EPA, and consolidated cases,No. 80-1607, D.C. Cir.) and suggestedthat EPA adopt that language here.

Response: EPA agrees that changes inthe certification language are warranted.First, we believe it is appropriate tomodify the proposed language to accordmore closely with the certificationlanguage agreed to in the consolidatedpermits settlement agreementconcerning 40 CFR § 122.22, formerly§ 122.6. 47 FR 25548, 25553 (June 14,.1982). We do not see a significantenough difference between thisregulation and § 122.22 to justifysubstantially different language. Thus,we have adapted the proposedsettlement language with minordifferences reflecting the particularnature of the TIO certificationrequirement. This language issubstantially similar to that nowavailable for the electrical andelectronics industry (Phase I). See 48 FR15382, April 8, 1983.

Second, we have amended thelanguage to allow the discharger tocertify that "no dumping of concentratedtoxic organics into the wastewater hasoccurred since filing the last dischargemonitoring report." The proposedlanguage appeared to require thedischarger to certify that he is incompliance with the limit; we recognizethat it may be difficult to certify to thislanguage in the absence of monitoring.Now, the discharger will be allowed tocertify as to his toxic organicmanagement practices. However,because the new wording is less-precise(i.e., no "dumping of.concentrated toxicorganics") and because somecommenters pointed to the need formore specificity about certificationprocedures, we are adding more explicitlanguage requiring the discharger todescribe his toxic organic managementplan. The proposed language wouldhave required the discharger to specifythe toxic organic compounds used andthe procedure used to prevent excessive

wastewater discharge of toxic organics,whereas the final language requires thedischarger to submit a toxic organicmanagement plan that specifies to thepermitting or control authority'ssatisfaction the toxic organiccompounds used; the method of disposalused instead of dumping, such as resale,reclamation, contract hauling, orincineration; and procedures forassuring that toxic organics do notroutinely spill or leak into thewastewater. The discharger must alsocertify that the facility is implementingthe toxic organic management plan.

Finally, for direct dischargers, thesolvent management plan will beincorporated as a condition of theirNPDES permits. A similar requirementdoes not exist for indirect dischargersbecause under the Clean Water Actpermits are not issued for them by thecontrol authority. However, thepretreatment standard does requireindirect dischargers to implement theplan which they submit to the controlauthority. Both these requirementsreinforce the discharger's responsibilityto implement his certification statement.

Addition of certification language isintended to reduce monitoring burdens.It does not in any way dimish thedischarger's liability for noncompliancewith the TTO limitation.

2. Comment: Several commentersquestioned EPA's estimate of minimalcosts for TTO control stating thatsignficant costs would be incurred fromsolvent disposal and from compliancemonitoring. A number of commentersquestioned the statement that costs forsolvent disposal could be offset byreclamation of these wastes.

Response: The Agency recognizes thatcosts can be associated with propersolvent management and compliancemonitoring. However, the Agency doesnot believe these costs will besignificant for the majority of thefacilities in the industry. 24% of thecaptives, 10.3% of the job shops and100% of the printed circuit boardfacilities perform solvent degreasing. Anestimated 73 percent of the facilitiesusing solvent degreasing are alreadypracticing proper disposal of thesewastes and would, therefore, not beexpected to incur additional costs tocomply with the electroplating or metalfinishing TTO limits. Facilities notpresently practicing proper solventmanagement would need to implementpractices such as contractor removaland/or reclamation.

Costs of proper solvent disposal canbe offset by solvent reclamation. Inresponse to comments, the Agencycontacted representatives of nationalsolvent reclamation associations. These

representatives indicated that solventreclamation is'a widespread, readilyavailable, and growing practice. Inaddition to the numerous plants with on-site reclamation facilities, it is estimatedthat more than 100 independentreclaimers are'in operation throughoutthe country and that reclaimers will payfor spent solvents especially if thesolvents are segregated and there is amarket demand for the particularsolvents.

The Agency recognizes that frequentmonitoring for TTO can be expensive.The Agency has attempted to reduce thecost by establishing the certificationalternative and by allowing monitoring,when necessary, to be limited to thosetoxic organics likely to be present in thewastewater of a plant. The Agencybelieves that almost all facilities will beable to certify in lieu of monitoring.However, in response to comments onthe cost of compliance monitoring, theAgency has re-assessed its cost estimateto consider quarterly monitoring forTTO. This frequency is reflective of acommon monitoring frequency requiredby control authorities. For the reasonsexplained in section IX, above, EPAbelieves that its economic analyses ofthe impacts of the TTO limit areconservative and fully state or overstatethe likely actual economic impacts.

3. Comment: Some commenterspointed out that the new source limitsfor cadmium were not supported byhistorical performance data. However,no commenters submitted data onperformance capabilities of new sourcetechnology.

Response: New source standards for,cadmium are based on controltechnology which is designed to reducecadmium in wastewater discharge fromcadmium sources, e.g. cadmium plating,chromating of cadmium plated parts,and acid cleaning of cadmium platedparts. The new source standards forcadmium are based on the amounts ofcadmium expected as a backgroundlevel to be found in wastewaters fromplants not involved with cadmiumplating. The standards were determinedfrom data on concentrations observed inuntreated wastewater from metalfinishing plants that do not platecadmium. It represents the amount ofcadmium present from incidentalsources, when the principal cadmiumsources are full controlled. The dataconsist of 61 observations from 27plants. The data were divided intostatistically homogeneous groups byplant. The average upon which thestandards were based was taken fromthe group with the highest averagecadmium concentration. Estimates of

32477

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rule' and Regulations

variability used in determining the limitswere obtained from the two highestgroups. This was somewhatconservative, because precipitation/clarification systems should achievesignificant further removals from theseraw waste streams.

The Agency also checked theconsistency of the limit with data fromEPA sampled precipitation/clarificationsystems. These data indicated that thenew source limit could be achievedalternatively by using precipitation/clarification, rather than total control ofthe principal cadmium source. Thisreview included plants with cadmiumraw wastes of from 0.012 to 1.88 mg/l.The Agency also reviewed the data baseused to develop the cadmium limit toverify that it included all available datafrom non-cadmium plating plants. Priorto promulgation costs were also re-examined to include expenses forcontrol of chromating and acid cleaningof cadmium plated parts, in addition tocontrolling cadmium plating which wasassessed in the proposal.

4. Comment: Commenters suggestedvarious averaging times as the basis formonthly limitations, including 4-day, 30-day, and "N" day averages.

Response: The Agency has evaluatedthe merits of the suggested alternativesand decided that an average of tensamples-(obtained within a one-monthperiod) would provide a reasonablebasis for monthly limitations,minimizing the number of samplesnecessary.

Although it is not anticipated that amonitoring frequency of 10 times permonth will always be required, the costof this frequency of monitoring ispresented inthe economic impactanalysis to the metal finishingregulation. That frequency was selectedbecause if facilities sample 10 times permonth they can expect a compliancerate of approximately 99 percent, if theyare operating at the expected mean andvariability. Plant personnel, inagreement with the control authority,may choose to take fewer samples iftheir treatment system achieves betterlong term concentrations or lowervariability than the basis for the limits,or if plant personnel are willing toaccept a statistical possibility ofincreased violations. The 10 samplemonthly limit is consistent with otherregulations and recent proposals forother metals industries, e.g., porcelainenameling, coil coating, batteries,copper, and aluminum forming.

The 4-day average is an inadequatemeasure of treatment systemperformance over extended periods.This basis was used for theelectroplating rules only under the

special circumstances of a SettlementAgreement.

The N-day average suggested by twocommenters was considered by theAgency but was rejected asunnecessarily complex and likely tocreate confusion for both dischargersand control authorities.

5. Comment: Commenters disagreedon the desirability or need to rescind theelectroplating regulations for captive

. electroplaters upon the compliance dateof the metal finishing PSES.

Response: The Part 413 ElectroplatingPSES will no longer be applicable tocaptive electroplating when they mustcomply with the Metal Finishing PSESfor metals and cyanide is reached.Captive electroplaters will then beregulated under the Part 433 MetalFinishing PSES. There is no need tomaintain two sets of requirements forthe same pollutants at the same plants.If, for some reason, Part 433 shouldbecome inapplicable, then Part 413 willapply to them.

6. Comment: The majority ofcommenters responding to the questionof the PSES compliance date stated thatMarch 30, 1984 would not providesufficient time for compliance.

Response: To allow facilitiessufficient time to install or upgrade thenecessary treatment systems, theAgency is establishing the compliancedate of the metal finishing PSES formetals and cyanide to be 31 monthsfrom the date of promulgation. Thisextension is based on an Agency studywhich showed that 31 months isrequired to plan, design, and install therecommended treatment technology.

This extension does not apply tocompliance with the toxic organics limit,however. For Metal Finishing PSES, aninterim TTO level must be achieved byJune 30, 1984, based on no end-of-pipetreatment, and the final TTO limit basedon end-of-pipe treatment must beachieved 31 months from the date ofpromulgation. For Electroplating PSES,the TTO compliance date is 3 years frompromulgation of this rulemaking. Thatallows the job shop and IPCBM sectorsthe maximum allowable time forcompliance under the Clean Water Act(CWA).

7. Comment: Commenters stated thatthe proposed lead limit was notachievable based on the technologyrecommended. Some argued that plantswith high raw waste lead values werenot adequately represented in the database. One commenter submittedadditional data.

Response: The Agency reviewed thelead data base to assure that all usabledata from plants having a lead sourcewere included. EPA did consider some

additional self-monitoring data thatwere found to be applicable andexcluded data from an originally-considered plant which was notadequately controlling wastewaters. Therevised EPA data base was used toderive a final lead limit. The dailymaximum for lead has been changedslightly from 0.67 mg/l to 0.69 mg/l. TheAgency also examined data submittedduring the comment period. These datawere not included because ofinadequate treatment design and/oroperation. For example, TSS values ashigh as 119 mg/l were submitted, oil andgrease was as high as 1395 mg/l andhexavalent chromium was as high as1.21 mg/l. An examination of thepossible effect of including thecommenter's data for lead revealed thatonly a slight change in the limit wouldhave occurred.

8. Comment: Some commenterssuggested a small plant exemption fromthe Metal Finishing r~gulations, arguingthat an exemption should be grantedsimilar to that provided by Part 413 forplants discharging less than 10,000gallons per day.

Response: Small indirect dischargingfacilities (<10,000 GPD discharge) weregiven less stringent requirements in theElectroplating Pretreatment Standards.Many of these facilities are job shopsand for the reasons stated above willnot be covered by the Part 433requirements.

The Agency re-examined the effect ofthe Part 433 metal finishing regulationson small facilities, and, has determinedthat because job shops and IPCBMs areexempted from the metal finishing PSESthere would be no significant economicimpacts if the remainder were coveredby the metal.finishing standards. Forindirect captives discharging less than10,000 GPD, the investment cost wouldamount to $36 million with annual costsof $12 million. There are no estimatedplant closure or divestitures. A smallfacility exemption is not warranted forthe Metal Finishing regulation.

9. Comment: Some commenters statedthat the addition of a TTO limit to theElectroplating PSES is a violation of theNAMF Settlement Agreement.

Response: Under the March 1980Settlement Agreement the Agencyagreed that-

any further BAT analog standards will bebased on treatment tecluology compatiblewith the model technology upon which thesestandards were based .... in developingBAT analog standards for the industry. EPAwill take into account the cumulative impactof these "BPT" regulations in determiningwhat is "economically achievable." ... Asto this segment of the metal finishing industry

32478


that is economically vulnerable, EPA doesnot believe that more stringent regulationsare now economically achievable. Therefore,EPA does not plan to develop more stringentnew pretreament standards for the job shopmetal finishing segment in the next severalyears. Nor does EPA plan to develop in thenext several years more stringent standardsfor the independent printed circuit boardsegment where significant economicvulnerability also exists.

EPA is not imposing metals andcyanide limitations more stringent thanthose specified in the Part 413 existingapplicable pretreatment standards,despite evidence that such limits can bereliably achieved by the technology thatforms the basis of the current standards.

Indirect discharging job shop andindependent printed circuit boardfacilities are expected to incur costsonly to comply with the TTO limitationwhich is being added to theelectroplating pretreatment standards inPart 413. This TTO limitation is includedin the regulation because it willsubstantially reduce a significant toxicproblem, while compliance will causenegligible economic impacts on theseindustry sectors. Compliance with thetoxic organic standard can be achievedby good management practices (i.e., notdumping.waste solvents into thewastewaters). No additional end-of-pipetechnology (beyond that required formetals removed) is necessary.

Even under very conservativeestimates only 77 of an estimated 2734indirect discharging job shops and 88 ofthe 327 indirect independent printedcircuit board manufacturers may incurcosts to comply with the TTO standard.Total annual costs for all plants of$222,500 and $254,300 respectively areprojected for the two sectors. Theaverage annual cost per facility tocomply with the TTO limitations isapproximately $2900, primarily forsampling and analysis. No closures oremployment effects are projected forthese sectors. Production cost increasesare expected not to exceed 0.03 percentfor the two sectors.

The economic impact analysis alsoperformed two sensitivity analyses: thefirst with a greater number of plantsmonitoring and, the second, with plantsmonitoring monthly instead of quarterly.Both changes led to only slightlydifferent impacts. At most only oneplant would be affected. All scenarioswere found to be acceptable andeconomically achievable. Thus the TTOlimits are not "more stringentstandards" in the sense of theSettlement Agreement, which expresslytied "stringency" to "economicvulnerability".

Finally, the TTO limits need not becomplied with before 1986. Thus, even ifcontrol of TTO were consideredsignificantly more stringent the timeallowed for compliance will amount to 6years from the date of the SettlementAgreement. That fulfills the Agency's1980 obligation not to developsignificantly more stringent standardsfor those facilities for the next severalyears.

10. Comment: Some commentersstated that the proposed TTO limit couldnot be met using a combination ofsolvent management and commonmetals treatment. Several commentersalso pointed out that plants previouslyin compliance with the metalslimitations under Electroplating PSESmay now require installation of commonmetals treatment to meet the TTO limit.

Response: The Agency has reviewedthe TTO data base, reevaluated themean and variability factor, and revisedthe effluent limit for TTO. The majorfactor contributing to the change wasthe examination of the TTO levels atcertain groupings of plants. The mostnotable discovery was that plants that

*performed both solvent degreasing andpainting tended to have the highestbackground concentrations of anyprocess grouping. The limit has beenbased on these plants. Where plants areotherwise subject to a regulation whosetechnology basis includes precipitation/clarification for removal of metals, theTTO limit has been based on effluentdata from precipitation/clarificationtreatment systems. We have alsoestablished a TTO limit of 4.57 mg/1based on only management practices.This limit is being used as an interimrequirement prior to installation ofpollution/equivalent to precipitation/clarification, and for plants dischargingless then 10,000 gpd and now covered bythe Part 413 Electroplating PSES. Thustoday's regulation specifies an interimTTO limit for small plants (<10,000gallons per day) because these plantsmay not already have common metalstreatment in place. Furthermore, theAgency notes that most facilities shouldbe capable of achieving compliance withthe ultimate TTO standard even withoutend-of-pipe treatment, simply throughstrict management control of toxicorganics. 89% of the TTO data prior toend-of-pipe treatment would complywith the final TTO limit based on theinclusion of precipitation/clarification.

11. Comment: Several commentersrecommended an amenable cyanidelimit as an alternative to a total cyanidelimit because amenable cyanide moreaccurately reflects the performance ofalkaline chlorination treatment.

Response: Most facilities should beable to meet the total cyanide limit.However, sufficient information hasbeen presented on cyanide formulationsand formation of complexes to supportthe possibility that a significantpopulation could fail to meet thelimitations. The technology basis isalkaline chlorination which destroysamenable cyanides. Thus, the final rulesinclude an alternative cyanide limit forplants generating significant quantitiesof complexed cyanide. The data andbasic calculations for the alternativecyanide limit were presented in theproposed development document. TheAgency rejected specifying a limit onlyfor amenable cyanide. While complexedcyanide are substantially less toxic, areview of literature indicates thatsignificant transformatioin of complexedcyanides into amenable cyanides willoccur in the aquatic environment due tothe presence of sunlight. If any waterquality problems occur due to the use ofthis alternative, the control authorityshould examine alternativetechnologies, i.e., precipitation withferrous sulfate.

12. Comment: Several commenterssuggested that fluoride, iron, andhexavalent chromium be regulated.

Response: The Agency did notestablish limitations for fluorides, iron,or hexavalent chromium because it wasdetermined that these parameters were(1) not present in sufficiently highquantities to warrant regulation or (2)would be removed by controlling aregulated parameter.

The historical performance data forflouride in effluent from plants withOption I treatment systems shows thatthe mean concentration was 6.58 mg/l;well below levels required bycategorical regulations for otherindustries, i.e., inorganic chemicals, andelectrical and electronic components(phase.1).

Iron was not selected for regulationbecause it would be substantiallyreduced during proper precipitation/clarification treatment. Thus control ofregulated pollutants will also effectcontrol of iron.

A limit was not established forhexavalent chromium because it will becontrolled by regulating total chromium.The technology basis does include thecost for hexavalent chromium streamsegregation and reduction. As stated inthe development document" chemicalhexavalent chromium reduction canreadily achieve final hexavalentchromium concentrations of 0.16 mg/Ifor a daily maximum and 0.10 mg/I for amaximum monthly average.Additionally, monitoring for total

32479


chromium has a distinct cost advantageover monitoring for hexavalent andsubsequently trivalent chromium. If anyof these or other parameters causeproblems with achieving local waterquality requirements, then the controlauthority must specify furtherrequirements on a plant-by-plant basis.

13. Comment: Several commentersstated that EPA's method fordistributing costs for indirectdischargers between the Part 413electroplating and the Part 433 metalfinishing regulations is misleading andunrealistic. Electroplating compliancecosts for captive indirect dischargershave not yet been incurred. When theseplants do comply, it will be with bothregulations in a one-time investment.Therefore, no costs should be attributedto Electroplating; rather, all costs shouldbe considered as Metal Finishingcompliance costs.

Response: The fact that a companymay make a one time investment doesn'tnecessarily mean that all the costsshould be attributed to the Part 433Metal Finishing Standard. Thecompliance date for Part 433 is nowgenerally two years after compliance isrequired by Part 413.

When EPA conducts its economicanalysis of a guideline, it identifies theincremental costs and impacts, as wellas the incremental pollutant removals.of that particular guideline. If otherpreviously promulgated regulationspertain to the same industry, the costsand associated pollutant removalswould have been identified in previouseconomic and environmental analyses.With the metal finishing regulation, theelectroplating costs are baseline costs;the will occur even if metal finishing isnot promulgated. Costs and impacts ofmetal finishing are incremental toelectroplating; the effect ofelectroplating isn't negated or obviatedbecause it may be more efficient forplants to make a one time investment.

For non-integrated captive indirectdischargers (more than 10,000 gallonsper day), this incremental investmentcost is zero. Non-integrated facilitiesdischarge process wastewaters fromelectroplating operations only. Althoughthese wastewaters are covered by metalfinishing standards which are morestringent than electroplating standards,the treatment system installed to meetthe electroplating standards will besufficient to meet the metal finishinglimits. This treatment system will be thesame whether or not metal finishing ispromulgated. The costs associated withinstallation of this treatment systemhave already been included in theelectroplating analysis and there is no

need to include them in the metalfinishing regulatory costs.

For integrated captive indirectdischargers, the incremental investmentcost is not zero. Integrated facilitiesdischarge wastewaters from other typesof processes in addition toelectroplating. Although the facility maysegregate its electroplating effluentstream for treatment, it is usually moreeconomical to combine waste streamsand build a single treatment facility.This treatment facility will be largerthan the facility which would have beenconstructed to treat a segregatedelectroplating effluent stream alone. Thecosts assigned to metal finishing arethose incremental costs over and abovethe amount that would have been spentfor treatment of the segregatedelectroplating effluent stream.

Finally, as noted above, EPA didassess the combined inpact of today'sregulation and the electroplatingpretreatment regulations on the captiveintegrated indirect discharging sector ofthe industry, assuming both costs wouldbe borne at the same time. The impactsare the same as those due to theelectroplating pretreatment standardsalone. No additional closures,divestitures, or unemployment effectsare expected from the more stringentstandards promulgated today.

14. Comment: Several commentersstated that the Agency should do aRegulatory Impact Analysis as requiredby Executive Order 12291.

Response: Executive Order 12291 doesnot require a Regulatory ImpactAnalysis where its consideration wouldconflict with the development ofregulations pursuant to a court order, aswith this metal finishing regulation. EPAhas prepared, however, an analysis thatcontains many of the elements of aRegulatory Impact Analysis. This reportis included in the public record for thisregulation.

15. Comment: Several commentersstated that the Metal FinishingGuidelines are not economicallyachievable.

Response: EPA's Economic Analysisof Proposed Effluent Standards andLimitations for the Metai FinishingIndustry provides an in-depth analysisof the economic impacts of the proposedguidelines. This analysis considers thecompliance costs (both capital andannual) for two regulatory options. Theeconomic impacts in terms'of plantclosures, process divestitures,employment losses, and cost increasesare also presented for both options.Analysis results are presented for eachsegment of the industry that is beingregulated: direct discharging job shops

and captives, indirect discharging jobshops and captives, and integratedprinted circuit board manufactures.

Results for Option I, the selectedoption, are summarized on Exhibit 1-4and 1-5 of the referenced report. Thedirect discharging segment (both jobshops and captives) will incur costs tocomply with the TTO limitation only.Indirect discharging job shops andindependent printed circuit boards alsowill incur costs to comply with the TTOstandard only. Annual compliance costsat these facilities are less than $2,900.No closures or employment effects areprojected. Indirect discharging captiveswill incur a total of $116 million inannual compliance costs. The analysisindicates that this segment is composedprimarily of large plants, many of whichare members of diversified industrialcorporations. As a result, there are noprojected impacts among captive plants.The costs of production for indirectdischarging captives are projected toincrease from 0.2 to 1.0 percent.

The absence of closure or employmenteffects combined with a small increasein the cost of production ranging from0.2 to 1.0 percent for all plants coveredby the metal finishing regulationindicate that the guidelines areeconomically achievable.

16. Comment: Commenters questionedthe assumption that captive operationshave no capital availability problem.They say that the economic conditionshave changed and capital availabilitycould indeed be a problem.

Response: Changes in the availabilityof capital are reflected in the cost ofcapital. To reflect the increase in thecost of capital, EPA adjusted its nominalcost of capital assumption in theEconomic Impact Analysis to 13 percentfrom the 10 percent cost of capital usedin the proposed regulation. To the extentthat an increase in the cost of capital isa problem today for metal finishers, itwould show up in the impact analysisconducted under the higher cost ofcapital. No changes in closures ordivestitures resulted from the increasedcost of capital assumption.

17. Comment: Several commentersstated that EPA did not properlyconsider the impact on small businesses,specifically the costs of compliance andresultant economic impacts for captiveindirect dischargers, whoseelectroplating process flow is less than10,000 gpd. EPA implicitly assumed thatall of these plants are in compliancewith the Electroplating PretreatmentStandards, but in fact these Standardsexempted plants from compliancewhose flow were less than 10,000 gpd.Therefore, they will incur costs and

I32480


economic impacts to comply with MetalFinishing Guidelines.

Response: The commenters arecorrect. The agency has since analyzedthe impact on indirect dischargingcaptives with metal finishing processflows of less than 10,000 gpd. Theanalysis concluded that a total of 912plants will incur compliance costs. Thetotal capital cost of compliance for thisuniverse is estimated at $35 million withannual costs of $12 million. No closuresor employment effects are projected forthis industry segment.

18. Comment: Commenters questionedthe assumption that the metal finishingdemand curve is inelastic.

Response: Metal finished productsface a wide range of demandelasticities. However, there are no goodsubstitutes for metal finishing due to thequality it imparts on materials. As aresult, an increase in the cost of metalfinishing will not bring a more thanproportional decrease in the use ofmetal finishing. The analysis assumedthat demand for metal finishing is in theinelastic range but did not assume thatall cost increases could be passedthrough. In fact, the captive closureanalysis assumes that a plant's captiveoperations will not be able to passthrough a pollution control cost increaseif it amounts to more than 5 percent oftheir total revenue. If the ratio of annualcosts to total revenue was larger than 5percent, the plant was projected toclose.

19. Comment: Commenters stated thatthey thought captive facitities will be ata competitive disadvantage because jobshops are exempted from metal finishingstandards.

Response: Captives are very rarely indirect competition with job shops, vyingfor the same customers. Captive platers,by definition, service their own firm'sneeds. A captive firm will maintain aplating process for its cost advantages.scheduling control, and specialtyprocesses. In the Agency's survey ofcaptive facilities, over 64 percentindicated they performed metal finishingin-house because it was either lessexpensive to do so or the work flowdidn't allow interruption of work. It istrue that job shops will often receive acaptive's overflow work, but this doesnot make them price competitors. Also.almost three-fourths of the indirectdischarging captive facilities and alldirect discharging captives and jobshops already have treatment in place.To the extent there may be changes inthe competitive position of captivesversus job shops, most of these changeswould have occurred already. Finally,indirect discharging job shops wereexempted from the metal finishing

regulation specifically because of theireconomic vulnerability. Job shops tendto be much smaller than captives; theyaverage 26 employees and $1.3 million insales versus over 100 employees and $14million in sales for captives.

20. Comment: A comment was madethat the definition of a job shop mayforce some "job shops" to be classifiedas captives.

Response: EPA proposed a definitionof job shops based on 50% ownership oftreated material. This is in accord withexisting practice by an overwhelmingportion of the affected industry. Anexamination of the survey of job shopsrevealed that 95% of the facilities statedthat their work was either 100% jobordered or 100% captive. Only 0.26% ofthe facilities reported that more than25%, but less than 50%, of theirproduction was done on materialsowned by others.

The final definition of a job shop hasbeen modified slightly, making themeasurement of "not more than 50%ownership" on a yearly basis. Thisresponds to a commenters' fear ofrepeated reclassification as a result of.business transactions. Now facilitieswill not be reclassified on a day-to-daybasis.

The definition is also appropriatebecause, the fact that a facility ispurchasing materials to be processedindicates some availability of capital. Ifso the less stringent Part 413requirements are less appropriate foreconomic reasons.

The agency considered various jobshop definitions from commentors andtrade association by-laws, including:

* "As its major operation theapplication of a surface treatment to theproducts of others."• "A shop which has purchased

orders from more than 50 percent of thematerials in process."

* "Parts to be finished are transportedfrom the customer's plant to thefinishers and then back."° "As its major operation the

application of a surface treatment to theproducts of others."° "A metal finisher who works to

other's specifications, making hisservices, available to the public at alltimes."

While some of these, notably the first,are close to the proposed and finaldefinitions, all suggestions includedsubstantial ambiguity. In light of therelaxed standards for job shops it isimportant that the definition be preciseand that captive shops not evade Part433 merely by taking on nominal outsideorders. EPA therefore chose a bright-linetest that clearly expressed the

overwhelmingly prevailing practice inthe industry.

EPA's definition is consistent with our1978 survey of the industry, which askedfor the "percent of electroplating doneon materials owned by others (basisarea plated)" and further defined a jobshop as "a manufacturing operationperforming work on materials owned byothers."

XX. Availability of TechnicalInformation

The basis for this regulation isdetailed in four major documents.Analytical methods are discussed inSampling and Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants. EPA's technicalconclusions are detailed in DevelopmentDocument for Effluent Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the MetalFinishing Point Source Category. TheAgency's economic analysis ispresented in Economic Impact Analysisof Effluent Limitations and Standardsfor the Metal Finishing Industry. Asummary of the public commentsreceived on the proposed regulation ispresented in a report "Responses toPublic Comments, Proposed MetalFinishing Effluent Guidelines andStandards," which is part of the publicrecord for this regulation.

Technical information may beobtained by writing to Richard Kinch,Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington.D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 382-7159.

Additional information concerning theeconomic Impact analysis may beobtained from Ms. KathleenEhrensberger, Economics Branch (WH-586), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W..Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling(202) 382-5397.

Copies of the technical and economicdocuments will be available from theNational Technical Information Service,Springfield. Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650,

XXI. OMB Review

This regulation was submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget forreview, as required by Executive Order12291. No written comments werereceived.

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511).the reporting and recordkeepingprovisions in 40 CFR 413.03 and 433.12that are included in this regulation willbe submitted for approval to OMB. Theyare not effective until OMB approval hasbeen obtained and the public is notified

32481


to that effect through a technicalamendment to this regulation.

XXII. List of subjects

40 CFR Part 413

Electroplating, Metals, Waterpollution control, Waste treatment anddisposal.

40 CFR Part 433

Electroplating, Metals, Waterpollution control, Waste treatment anddisposal,

Dated: July 5, 1983.William D. Ruckelshaus,Administrator.

Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and501 of the Clean Water Act (the FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amendments of1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., as amended bythe Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217).

[Note.-These appendices will not appearin the CFR.]

XXIII. Appendices

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronyms,and Other Terms Used in This Notice

Act-The Clean Water Act.Agency-The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.BAT-The best available technology

economically achievable under Section304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, under Section304(b)(4) of the Act.

BMPS-Best management practicesunder Section 304(e) of the Act.

BPT--The best practicable controltechnology currently available underSection 304(b)(1) of the Act.

Captive-A facility which owns morethan 50% (annual area basis) of thematerials undergoing metal finishing.

Clean Water Act (also "the Act")-The Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq.), as amended by the Clean WaterAct of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217).

Development Document-Development Document for EffluentLimitations, Guidelines, and Standardsfor the Metal Finishing Point SourceCategory, EPA 440-1-80-091-A, June1980.

Direct discharger-A facility thatdischarges or may discharge pollutantsinto waters of the United States.

Indirect discharger-A facility thatdischarges or may discharge pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment works.

Job Shop-A facility which owns notmore than 50% (annual area basis) of thematerials undergoing metal finishing.

Integrated facility-One that performselectroplating operations (includingelectroplating, electroless plating,chemical etching and milling, anodizing,coating, and printed circuit board

manufacturing) as only one of severaloperations necessary for manufacture ofa product at a single physical location,and has significant quantities of processwastewater from non-electroplatingoperations. In addition, to qualify as"integrated," a facility must combineone or more plant electroplating processwastewater lines before or at the pointof treatment (or proposed treatment)with one or more plant sewers carryingprocess wastewater from non-electroplating manufacturing operations.

NPDES Permit-A National PollutantDischarge Elimination System permitissued under Section 402 of the Act.

NSPS-New source performancestandards promulgated under Section306 of the Act.

POTW-Publicly owned treatmentworks.

PSES-Pretreatment standards forexisting sources of indirect dischargespromulgated under Section 307(b) of theAct.

PSNS-Pretreatment standards fornew sources of direct discharges,promulgated under Section 307 (b) and(c) of the Act.

RCRA-Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 1976,Amendments to Solid Waste DisposalAct, as amended.

TTO-Total Toxic Organics is thesummation of all values greater than .01milligrams per liter for each of thespecified toxic organics.

Appendix B-Pollutants Excluded FromRegulation

(1) Toxic Pollutants-found in only asmall number of sources and effectivelycontrolled by the technologies on whichthe limits are based:AntimonyArsenicAsbestosBerylliumMercurySeleniumThallium

(2) Conventional Pollutants:

BOBFecal Coliform

Appendix C-Unit Operations in theMetal Finishing Industry

1. @Electroplating2. Electroless Plating3. Anodizing4. Coating (Chromating, Phosphating,

and Coloring)5. Chemical Etching and Milling6. Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing7. Cleaning8. Machining9. Grinding10. Polishing11. Tumbling

12. Burnishing13. Impact Deformation14. Pressure Deformation15. Shearing16. Heat Treating17. Thermal Cutting18. Welding19. Brazing20. Soldering21. Flame Spraying22. Sand Blasting23. Other Abrasive Jet Machining24. Electric Discharge Machining25. Electrochemical Machining26. Electron Beam Machining27. Laser Beam Machining28. Plasma Arc Machining29. Ultrasonic Machining30. Sintering31. Laminating32. Hot Dip Coating33. Sputtering34. Vapor Plating35. Thermal Infusion36. Salt Bath Descaling37. Solvent Degreasing38. Paint Stripping39. Painting40. Electrostatic Painting41. Electropainting42. Vacuum Metalizing43. Assembly44. Calibration45. Testing46. Mechanical Plating

PART 413-ELECTROPLATING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

For the reasons stated above, EPA isamending Part 413 of 40 CFR, Chapter Ias follows:

1. Section 413.01 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read asfollows:

§ 413.01 Applicability and compliancedates.

(a) This part shall apply toelectroplating operations in which metalis electroplated on any basis materialand to related metal finishing operationsas set forth in the various subparts,whether such operations are conductedin conjunction with electroplating,independently, or as part of some otheroperation. The compliance deadline formetals and cyanide at integratedfacilities shall be June 30, 1984. Thecompliance date for metals and cyanideat non-integrated facilities shall be April27, 1984. Compliance with TTO for allfacilities shall be July 15, 1986.' These

'The Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train, 12 ERC1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies a compliance date forPSES of no later than June 30,1984. EPA has movedfor a modification of that provision of the Decree.Should the Court deny that motion, EPA will berequired tomodify this compliance,dateaccordingly.

32482


Part 413 standards shall not apply to afacility which must comply with all thepollutant limitations listed in § 433.15(metal finishing PSES).

2. Section 413.02 is amended byadding a new paragraph (i), as follows:

§ 413.02 General definitions.

(i) the term "170" shall mean totaltoxic organics, which is the summationof all quantifiable values greater than0.01 milligrams per liter for the followingtoxic organics:AcenaphtheneAcroleinAcrylonitrileBenzeneBenzidineCarbon tetrachloride(tetrachloromethane)Chlorobenzene1,2,4-trichlorobenzeneHlexachlorobenzene1.2-dichloroethane1,1,1-trichloroethaneHexachloroethane1l,-dichloroethane1,1,2-trichloroethane1,1.2.2-tetrachloroethaneChloroethaneBis (2-chloroethyl) ether2-chloroethyl vinyl ether(mixed)2-chloronaphthalene2.4,6-trichlorophenolParachlorometa cresolChloroform (trichloromethane)2-chlorophenol1.2-dichlorobenzenet.3-dichlorobenzene1.4-dichlorobenzene3,3-dichIorobenzidine1,1-dichloroethylene1,2-trans-dichloroethylene2,4-dichlorophenol1,2-dichloropropane(1.3-dichloropropene)2.4-dimethylphenol2.4-dinitrotoluene2.6-dinitrotoluene1,2-diphenylhydrazineEthylbenzeneFluoranthene4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether4-bromophenyl phenyl etherBis (2-chloroisopropyl) etherBis (2-chloroethoxy) methaneMethylene chloride(dichloromethane)Methyl chloride(chloromethanetMethyl bromide (bromomethane)Bromoform (tribromomethane)DichlorobromomethaneChlorodibromomethaneHlexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadienelsophoroneNaphthaleneNitrobenzene

2-nitrophenol4-nitrophenol2,4-dinitrophenol4,6-dinitro-o-cresolN-nitrosodimethylamineN-nitrosodiphenylamineN-nitrosodi-n-propylaminePentachlorophenolPhenolBis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateButyl benzyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDiethyl phthalateDimethyl phthalate1,2-benzanthracene(benzo(a)anthracene)Benzo(ajpyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)3,4-Benzofluoranthene(benzo(b)fluoranthene)11.12-benzofluoranthene(benzo(klfluoranthene)ChryseneAcenaphthyleneAnthracene1.12-benzoperylene(benzo(ghi)perylene)FluorenePhenanthrene1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene(dibenzo(a,h]anthracene)Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene)(2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)PyreneTetrachloroethyleneToluene.TrichloroethyleneVinyl chloride (chloroethylene)AldrinDieldrinChlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)4,4-DDT4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)4.4-DDD (p,p-TDE)Alpha -endosulfanBeta-endosulfanEndosulfan sulfateEndrinEidrin aldehydeHeptachlorHeptachlor epoxide(BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)Alpha-BHCBeta-BH-ICGamma-BHCDelta-BHC(PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls)PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242]PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)PCB-1016 (Arochlor 10161Toxaphene2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

3. Section 413.03 is amended byadding the following:

§ 413.03 Monitoring requirements.(a] In lieu of monitoring for TTO, the

control'authority may allow industrialusers of POTWs to make the followingcertification as a comment to the

periodic reports required by § 403.12(e):"Based on my inquiry of the person orpersons directly responsible for.managing compliance with thepretreatment standard for total toxicorganics ('FIO., I certify that, to the bestof my knowledge and belief, no dumpingof concentrated toxic organics into thewastewaters has occurred since filingthe last discharge monitoring report. Ifurther certify that this facility isimplementing the solvent managementplan submitted to the control authority."

(b) In requesting that no monitoring berequired industrial users of POTWsshall submit a solvent management planthat specifies to the control authority'ssatisfaction the toxic organiccompounds used; the method of disposalused instead of dumping, such asreclamation, contract hauling, orincineration; and procedures forassuring that toxic organics do notroutinely spill or leak into thewastewater.

(c) If monitoring is necessary tomeasure compliance with the TTOstandard the industrial user needanalyze only for those pollutants whichwould reasonably be expected to bepresent.

4. Section 413.14 is amended byadding paragraphs (f}, (g), and (h), asfollows:

§ 413.14 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources.

(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and(b) the following limitation shall applyfor plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10,000 gal) per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maxi-

any Iday

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),(d), and (e) the following limitation shallapply for plants discharging 38,000 1(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Maxi-Pollutant or pollutant propety mum forany I

day

TO ................................................................................ 2 .1 3

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),(c), (d), (e), (I), and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing source

170 ............ ;..... ............................... ........ .................... 4.57

32483


submitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

5. Secton 413.24 is amended by addingparagraph (0), (g) and (h), as follows:


(f) In addition to paragraphs (a] and(b] the following limitation shall applyfor plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10,000 gal] per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Maxi-Pollutant or Pollutant property anyany I

day

n o .............................................................................. 4 .57


Maxi-

Pollutant or Pollutant property mum forany Iday

n ro .......................................................... .............. 2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),(c), (d], (e), (f], and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing sourcesubmitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

6. Section 413.44 is amended byadding paragraph (, (g), and (h), asfollows:


(f) In addition to paragraphs (a] and(b] the following limitation shall applyfor plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10,000 gal) per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Maxl-

Pollutant or Pollutant property mum r• any Iday

TTO ..................................................................... . . .. 4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),(d), and (e) the following limitation shallapply for plants discharging 38,000 1

(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Pollutant or pollutant property

Maxi-mum for

any 1day

TTO ............... 2 1............ .............................. : ..................... 2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),(c), (d), (e), (f], and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing sourcesubmitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

7. Section 413.54 is amended byadding paragraph (f), (g), and (h), asfollows:


(f) In addition to paragraphs (a] and(b) the following limitation shall applyfor plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10;000 gal) per calendar day.ofelectroplating process wastewater:

maxi-Pollutant or pollutant property any 1or

day

n o ................................................................................. 4.5 7

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a], (c),(d), and (e) the following limitation shallapply for plants discharging 38,000 1(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day ofelectroplating process waterwater:

Maxi-mum for

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1day

n ro ................................................................................ 2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing sourcesubmitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

8. Section 413.64 is amended byadding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h), asfollows:


(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and(b) the following limitation shall apply

32484

for plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10,000 gal) per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

" Maxi-

mum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1

. day

TTO ....................................................... : ................. .... 4.57


Max-mum torPollutant or Pollutant property any 1

day

IT O ............................................................................ . 2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a], (b),(c], (d), (e], (f), and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing sourcesubmitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

9. Section 413.74 is amended byadding paragraphs (f}, (g) and (h), asfollows:


(f) In addition to paragraphs (a] and(b) the following limitation shall applyfor plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10,000 gal) per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Maxi-

mum forPollutant or pollutant property any t

day

n To ......................... 4 ........................................................ 4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c),(d), and (e) the following limitation shallapply for plants discharging 38,000 1(10,000 gal] or moreper calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Maxi-Pollutant or pollutant property any 1

day

n o . ............................................... ................... 2.13

(h] In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),(d), (d), (e), (f), and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing source

I Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, Jlily 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

submitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

10. Section 413.84 is amended byadding paragraphs (f), (g) and (h). asfollows:


(f) In addition to paragraphs (a) and(b) the following limitation shall applyfor plants discharging less than 38,000 1(10,000 gal) per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Pollutant or pollutant propertyMaxi-

mum forany 1day

4.57

(g) In addition to paragraphs (a), (c).(d), and (e) the following limitation shallapply for plants discharging 38,000 1(10,000 gal) or more per calendar day ofelectroplating process wastewater:

Max-Pollutant or pollutant property mum for

any Iday

TTO ................................................................................... 2.13

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), (b),(c), (d), (e), (f}, and (g) the followingshall apply: An existing sourcesubmitting a certification in lieu ofmonitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of thisregulation must implement the toxicorganic management plan approved bythe control authority.

In addition, for the rdasons statedabove, EPA is establishing a new Part433 to Title 40 of the Code of FederalRegulations to read as follows:

PART 433-METAL FINISHING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY -

Subpart A-Metal Finishing Subcategory

Sec.433.10 Applicability; description of the metal

finishing point source category.433.11 Specialized definitions.433.12 Monitoring requirements.433.13 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

433.14 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT).

433.15 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

433.16 New source performance standards(NSPS).

433.17 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

433.18 [Reserved]Authority: Sec. 301, 304(b), (c), (e), and (g),

306(b) and (c), 307(b) and (c), 308 and 501 ofthe Clean Water Act (the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of 1971,as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)(the "Act"); 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314(b) (c). (e),and (g), 1316(b) and (c), 1317(b) and (c), 1318and 1361: 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-:500: 91 Stat.1567, Pub. L. 95-217.

Subpart A-Metal FinishingSubcategory

§ 433.10 Applicability; description of themetal finishing point source category.

(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b)and (c), of this section, the provisions ofthis subpart apply to plants which . \perform any of the following six metalfinishing operations on any basismaterial: Electroplating, ElectrolessPlating, Anodizing, Coating (chromating,phosphating, and coloring), ChemicalEtching and Milling, and Printed CircuitBoard Manufacture. If any of those sixoperations are present, then this partapplies to discharges from thoseoperations and also to discharges fromany of the following 40 process'operations: Cleaning, Machining,Grinding, Polishing, Tumbling,Burnishing, Impact Deformation,Pressure Deformation, Shearing, IHeatTreating, Thermal Cutting, Welding,Brazing, Soldering, Flame Spraying,Sand Blasting, Other Abrasive jetMachining, Electric DischargeMachinipg, Blectrochemical Machining,Electron Beam Machining, Laser BeamMachining, Plasma Arc Machining,Ultrasonic Machining, Sintering,Laminating, Hot Dip Coating, Sputtering,Vapor Plating, Thermal Infusion, SaltBath Descaling, Solvent Degreasing,Paint Stripping, Painting, ElectrostaticPainting, Electropainting, VacuumMetalizing, Assembly, Calibration,Testing, and Mechanical Plating.

(b) In some cases effluent limitationsand standards for the followingindustrial categories may be effectiveand applicable to wastewaterdischarges from the metal finishing.operations listed above. In such casesthese Part 433 limits shall not apply andthe following regulations shall apply:

Nonferrous metal smelting and refining (40CFR Part 421)

Coil coating (40 CFR Part 465)Porcelain enameling (40 CFR Part 466)Battery manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)Iron and steel (40 CFR Part 420)Metal casting foundries (40 CFR Part 464)Aluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467)Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468)Plastic molding and. forming (40 CFR Part 463)

(c) This Part does not apply to: (1)Metallic platemaking and gravurecylinder preparation conducted withinprinting and publishing facilities; and (2)existing indirect discharging job shopsand independent printed circuit boardmanufacturers which are covered by 40CFR Part 413.)

§ 433.11 Specialized definitions.The definitions set forth in 40 CFR and

the chemical analysis methods set forthin 40 CFR 136 are both incorporated hereby reference. In addition, the followingdefinitions apply to this part:

(a) The term "T", as in "Cyanide, T",shall mean total.

(b) The term "A", as in "Cyanide A",shall mean amenable to alkalineChlorination.

(c) The term "job shop" shall mean afacility which owns not more than 50%(annual area basis) of the materialsundergoing metal finishing.

(d) The term"independent" printedcircuit board manufacturer shall mean afacility which manufacturers printedcircuit boards principally for sale toother companies.

(e) The term "TTO" shall mean totaltoxic organics, which is the summationof all quantifiable values greater than.01 milligrams per liter for the followingtoxic organics:AcenaphtheneAcroleinAcrylonitrileBenzeneBenzidineCarbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)Chlorobenzene1,2,4-trichlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene1,2,-dichloroethane1.1,1-trichloroethaneHexachloroethane1,1-dichloroethane1,1,2-trichloroethane1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethaneChloroethaneBis (2-chloroethyl) ether2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)2-chloronaphthalene2,4,6-trichlorophenolParachlorometa cresolChloroform (trichloromethane)2-chlorophenol1,2-dichlorobenzene1,S-dichlorobenzene1,4-dichlorobenzeneN-nitrosodi-n-propylaminePentachlorophenolPhenolBis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateButyl benzyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDiethyl phthalateDimethyl phthalate1.2-benzanthracene(benzo(a)anthracene)

32485

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday,. July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)3,4-Benzofluoranthene (benzo(b)fluoranthene11,12-benzofluoranthene

(benzo(k)fluoranthene)ChryseneAcenaphthyleneAnthracene1,12-benzoperylene (benzo[ghi)perylene)FluorenePhenanthrene1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

(dibenzo(a,h)anthracenelndeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-phenlene

pyrenelPyreneTetrachloroethyleneTolueneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chloride (chloroethylene)3,3-dichlorobenzidine1,1-dichloroethylene1,2-trans-dichloroethylene2,4-dichlorophenol1,2-dichloropropane (1,3-dichloropropene)2,4-dimethylphenol2,4-dinitrotoluene2,6-dinitrotoluene1,2-diphenylhydrazineEthylbenzeneFluoranthene4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether4-bromophenyl phenyl etherBis (2-chloroisopropyl) etherBis (2-chloroethoxy) methaneMethylene chloride (dichloromethaneMethyl chloride (chloromethane)Methyl bromide (bromomethane)Bromoform (tribromomethane)DichlorobromomethaneChlorsdibromomethaneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneIsophoroneNaphthaleneNitrobenzene2-nitrophenol4-nitrophenol2,4-dinitrophenol4,6-dinitro-o-cresolN-nitrosodimethylamineN-nitrosodimethylamineAldrinDieldrinChlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)4,4-DDT4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)Alpha-endosulfanBeta-endosulfanEndosulfan sulfateEndrinEndrin aldehydeHeptachlorHeptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocyclohexane)Alpha-BHCBeta-BHCGamma-BHCDelta-BHC(PCB-polychlorina ted biphenyls)PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)

PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)Toxaphene2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD}

§ 433.12 Monitoring requirements.(a) In lieu of requiring monitoring for

TTO, the permitting authority (or, in thecase of indirect dischargers, the controlauthority) may allow dischargers tomake the following certificationstatement: "Based on my inquiry of theperson or persons directly responsiblefor managing compliance with thepermit limitation [or pretreatmentstandard] for total toxic organics (TTO),I certify that, to the best of myknowledge and belief, no dumping ofconcentrated toxic organics into thewastewaters has occurred since filing ofthe last discharge monitoring report. Ifurther certify that this facility isimplementing the solvent managementplan submitted to the permitting [orcontrol] authority." For directdischargers, this statement is to'beincluded as a "comment" on theDischarge Monitoring Report requiredby 40 CFR 122.44(i), formerly 40 CFR122.62(i). For indirect dischargers, thestatement is to be included as acomment to the periodic reportsrequired by 40 CFR 403.12(e). Ifmonitoring is necessary to measurecompliance with the TTO standard, theindustrial discharger need analyse foronly those pollutants which wouldreasonably be expected to be present.

(b) In requesting the certificationalternative, a discharger shall submit asolvent management plan that specifiesto the satisfaction of the permittingauthority (or, in the case of indirectdischargers, the control authority) thetoxic organic compounds used; themethod of disposal used instead ofdumping, such as reclamation, contracthauling, or incineration; and proceduresfor ensuring that toxic organics do notroutinely spill or leak into thewastewater. For direct dischargers, th6permitting authority shall incorporatethe plan as a provision of the permit.

(c) Self-monitoring for cyanide mustbe conducted after cyanide treatmentand befor dilution with other streams.Alternatively, samples may be taken ofthe final effluent, if the plant limitationsare adjusted based on the dilution ratioof the cyanide waste stream flow to theeffluent flow.

§ 433.13 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby applying the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR125.30-32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by applying thebest practicable control technologycurrently available {BPT):

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

MonthlyMaximum for average.Pollutant or pollutant prope any 1 day shall no,

exceed

Cadm ium (T) .................... .. ..Chromium (T) ....................Copper (T) ...............................Lead (T) ...................... .......Nickel (T) .......................................Silver (T) .......................................Zinc (T) ...............................Cyanide (T) ...................................TTO ................................................O il & G rease .................................TSS ................................................pH ..................................................

' Within 6.0 to 9.0.

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

0.69 0.262.77 1.713.38 2.070.69 0.433.98 2.380.43 0.242.61 1.48

.1.20 0.652 .13 ........................

52 2660 31(i) 1 (i)

(b) Alternatively, for industrialfacilities with cyanide treatment, ardupon agreement between a sourcesubject to those limits and the pollutioncontrol authority, the followingamenable cyanide limit may apply inplace of the total cyanide limit specifiedin paragraph (a) of this section:

MonthlyPollutant or pollutant property Maximum for average

any 1 day shall notIexceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/)

Cyanide (A) ................................... 0.86 0.32

(c) No user subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall augment the use ofprocess wastewater or otherwise dilutethe wastewater as a partial or totalsubstitute for adequate treatment toachieve compliance with this limitation.

§ 433.14 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby applying the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR125.30-32, any existing point sourcesubject to this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by applying thebest available' technology economicallyachievable (BAT):

BAT EFFLUENT UMITATIONS

Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day

Monthyaverageshall notexceed


Cadmiun (T) ................................ 0.69 '0.26 -

Chromium (T) ............... 277 1.71Copper (T) .................... 3.38 2.07Lead (T) ......................................... 0.69 0.43

32486


BAT EFFLUENT LiMITATIONS-Continued

MonthlyPoltan 0Maximum for =aveagent or pollutant property any 1 day shall not

exceed

Nickel (T) ....................................... 3.98 2.38-Silver (T) ........................................ 0.43 0.24Zinc (T) ..................... 2.61 1.48Cyanide (T) .................. .1.20 0.65TTO............................... 2.13 .........

(b) Alternatively, for industrialfacilities with cyanide" treatment, andupon agreement between a sourcesubject to those limits and the pollutioncontrol authority, the followingamenable cyanide limit may apply inplace of the total cyanide limit specifiedin paragraph (a) of this section:

MonthlyPollutant or pollutant property Maximum for average

any I day shall notexceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/l)

Cyanide (A) ................................... 0.86 0.32


§ 433.15 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart that introduces pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment worksmust comply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES):

PSES FOR ALL PLANTS EXCEPT JO SHOPS

AND INDEPENDENT PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD

MANUFACTURERS

I eMontyPollutant or pollutant property aau f averageany 1 day shall enot

Migrams per liter (mg/Il

Cadmium (T)............................... 0.69 0.26Chromium (T) .............................. 2.77 1,71Copper (T) .................................... 3.38 2.07Lead (T) ........................................ 0.69 0.43Nickel (T) ..................................... 3.98 2.38Silver (T) ....................................... 0.43 0.24Zinc (T) ......................................... 2.61 1.48Cyanide (T) .................... * 1.20 0.65TTO ................................................ 2.13 ..........

(b) Alternatively, for industrialfacilities with cyanide treatment, uponagreement between a source subject tothose limits and the pollution controlauthority. The following amenablecyanide limit may apply in place of thetotal cyanide limit specified in'

paragraph (a) of this section:

MonthlyMxmmfr average

Pollutant or pollutantproperty I anyIday shallnotexceed

Millgrams per liter (mg/I)

Cyanide (A) .................................. 08 0.32

(c) No user introducing wastewaterpollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works under the provisions ofthis subpart shall augment the use ofprocess wastewater as a partial or totalsubstitute for adequate treatment toachieve compliance with this standard.

(d) An existing source submitting acertification in lieu of monitoringpursuant to § 433.12 (a) and (b) of thisregulation must implement the solventmanagement plan approved by thecontrol authority.

(e) An existing source subject to thissubpart shall comply with a dailymaximum pretreatment standard forTTO of 4.57 mg/l.

(f) Compliance with the provisions ofparagraph (c), (d), and (e) of this sectionshall be achieved as soon as possible,but not later than June 30, 1984, howevermetal finishing facilities which are alsocovered by Part 420 (iron and steel)need not comply before July 10, 1985.1Compliance with the provisions ofparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of thissection shall be achieved as soon aspossible, but not later than Feburary 15,1986.'

§ 433.16 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

(a) Any new source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followingperformance standards:

NSPS

MonthlyPollutant or poflutant property Maxmm for average

1day iha notexceed

Milligrams per Mar (mg/l)

Cadmium (T) ................................ 0.11 0.07Chromium (T) .............................. 2.77 1.71Copper (T) .................... 3.38 2.07Lead IT) ........................................ 0.69 0.43Nickel (T) ...................................... 3.98 2.36Silver (T) ....................................... 0.43 0.24Zinc (T) ....................................... . 2.61 1.48Cyanide (T) .................................. 1.20 0.66TTO ......................... 2.13 ..........Oil and Grease ................ 52 26TSS .... ......... ........... 60 31pH ...................... I ..... ............. ... (II ('l

Within 6.0 to 9.0.

'The Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train, 12 ERC1833 (D.D.C. 1979) specifies a compliance date forPSES of no later than June 30, 1964. EPA has movedfor a modification of that provision of the Decree.Should the Court deny that motion, EPA will berequired to modify this compliance dateaccordingly.

(b) Alteratively, for industrialfacilities with cyanide treatment, andupon agreement between a sourcesubject to those limits and the pollutioncontrol authority, the followingamenable cyanide limit may apply inplace of the total cyanide limit specifiedin paragraph (a) of this section:

MonthlyPollutant or pollutant property Maximu for average

shall notexceed


Cyanide (A) ................................... 0.88 0.32

(c) No user subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall augment the use ofprocess wastewater or otherwise dilutethe wastwater as a partial ot totalsubstitute for adequate treatment toachieve compliance with this limitation.

§ 433.17 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR403.7, any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new Sources (PSNS):

PSNS

MaxImum MonthlyPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 aerage

exceed

Milligrans per mer (mg/il

Cadmium (T) ................................... 0.11 0.07Chromium (T) .................................. 2,77 1.71Copper (T) ....................................... 3.38 2.07Lead (tI) .......................................... . 0.69 0.43Nickel (T) ...................... 3.98 2.38Silver (T) .......................................... 0.43 0.24Zinc (T) ............ ...................... . 2.61 1.48Cyanide (T) ..................................... 1.20 0.65TTO ..: ............................................... 2.13 ......................

(b) Alternatively, for industrialfacilities-with cyanide treatment, andupon agreement between a sourcesubject to these limits and the pollutioncontrol authority, the following .amenable cyanide limit may apply inplace of the total cyanide limit specifiedin paragraph (a) of this section:

Maximum MonthlyPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 age

exceed


Cyanide (A) ..................................... 0 8 032

32487

32488 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rcles and Regulations


(d) An existing source submitting acertification in lieu of monitoringpursuant to § 433.12 [a) and (b) of thisregulation must implement the solventmanagement plan approved by thecontrol authority.

§ 433.18 [Reservedl1FR Doc. 83-1 ,d819 F.hed 7-14-83:8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

Vol. 48, No. 137 4/ Friday, July 15, 1983 Rules and ... · Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 /...

Documents

Transcript of Vol. 48, No. 137 4/ Friday, July 15, 1983 Rules and ... · Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 /...